[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24932-25567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-190503]



MTC-00007630

From: Rodney Haas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern,
    Frankly I cannot believe this lawsuit lasted this long. There is 
no question that an excessive and unfair settlement will further 
destroy the software business. Microsoft has been the driving force 
for bringing the price of both software and hardware down. Microsoft 
not only has not hurt the consumer, but has radically helped.
    You only need to look @ apple as a comparison. Apple has indeed 
harmed the consumer with unreasonably high prices. Apple has clearly 
harmed innovation except for the chosen few. Microsoft has in fact 
had open and published interfaces to their software for years. I 
have used this interface many times to extend my vertical market 
applications. This has allowed me to add massive power to my 
applications without having to charge my clients.
    In closing I would highly suggest that you focus your energy on 
something else. While some of Microsoft's competitors have been 
hurt, must are far to large to even qualify under the monopoly 
protections. Companies like Netscape were clearly not hurt selling 
for more than 4 billion dollars. Many other companies that have gone 
away, have done so because of bad UI, marketing and faulty feature 
sets.
    Rodney Haas
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00007631

From: Beckers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ et al:
    Please help stop the feeding frenzy at Microsoft and consumers' 
expense. Microsoft delivers fairly sophisticated products at 
reasonable prices, and do not manufacture hardware other than basic 
peripherals such as keyboards. We need them creating superior 
products to help balance our trade deficit. Instead, you might want 
to investigate ``proprietary'' software products by companies who 
really want to prevent the establishment of industry standards and 
protocols.
    Rick Becker
    California, USA



MTC-00007632

From: Richard Paietta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:57pm
Subject: The Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This suit should have never been undertaken in the first place. 
It was done by the previous administration for the benefit of 
Microsoft's competition. At no time was the public hurt or at issue 
in this case. This action has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars 
for the benefit of a few (e.g. AOL, Sun, Etc). Not only has this 
cost the American taxpayer in dollars that could have been spent 
elsewhere it has cause the present downturn in our economy. DOJ was 
right in settling the issue and the remaining 9 states that are home 
to Microsoft's competition should be forced to settle. This was a 
case of bad law and the legal system showing its worst side. There 
is no excuse for the Federal Government having to act as the 
protector of Microsoft's competition. The law was put on the books 
for the protection of the public. The market place in a free economy 
determines who stays in business and who does not. This suit has 
also cost many of us who have invested in Microsoft for their 
retirement. What do you intend to do to help, since this has cost 
many large sums of their retirement investments. Settle the case and 
ask to judge to force a resolution with the hold out states. It is 
time that DOJ corrected the mistakes of the past administration.
    Richard L. Paietta
    [email protected]



MTC-00007633

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft and end this litigation. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties. It will be good 
for the economy. Thank you.
    Marge Ferrari, 135 Westwood Drive, Novato, CA 94945



MTC-00007634

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this case ASAP. I am very tired of disgruntled 
companies who are not capable of competing on their own trying to 
use the courts to further their position in the world of tough 
competition. I thought capitalism is what made us a free enterprise 
nation, and competition is what enables the best of the best to help 
build this country on a world wide basis. I still do not understand 
why the previous administration wanted to punish a remarkable 
company like Microsoft. Let's get on with life, stop wasting 
taxpayers money and let the best companies win. That's what it is 
all about.
    Michael D. Arndt



MTC-00007635

From: Jerome Montez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Settlement
    My opinon on this case is leave private enterprizes alone the 
goverment should stay out of it all they manage to do is drive up 
prices for the consumer



MTC-00007636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is appropriate and should be 
enacted.
    Ethel Gardner
    175 e. 74 st.
    New York, N.Y.



MTC-00007637

From: Marx Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to know who determined that the break up of 
Microsoft would be in the consumers best interest. I would bet it 
came from a disgruntled competitor like Netscape. Surely it could 
not have come from the same people that thought that breaking up 
AT&T was good for the consumer. I feel that to penalize Microsoft 
for continuing to develop new technology is wrong. It sends a 
message to others that may want to develop and market a product, 
that if they get too big or too popular and the competition can no 
longer provide an equal quality product for a competitive price, 
that someone well sue them and try to destroy what they have done. 
If I am successful, the government will take away that success. 
Enough is enough! Why is it that the courts have recommended a 
settlement and Microsoft has agreed to it, that their are still 
those that oppose that settlement. They seem intent on destroying 
Microsoft. How much do those people give back to the people 
responsible for their success? How much do they give to charity? How 
much? I feel that if Microsoft continues to come under assault, that 
the inevitable result will be less new innovation and new technology 
and higher prices to pay for it. I am sorry, but my idea of the 
American Way is not to Pay more for less!
    Marx Heller
    Williamstown NJ
    [email protected]
    I VOTE!!



MTC-00007638

From: Zelia Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle now.



MTC-00007639

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:00pm
Subject: Settlement
    In all of this litagation, I have never seen one consumer come 
forward and actually state that the packages that Microsoft bundled 
together hurt them. I for one am glad Microsoft put these programs 
together on my computer. If I would have had to go out and purchase 
these programs separately, I probably would not have a computer 
today.
    Thank You;
    [email protected]



MTC-00007640

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a middle class worker, saving for retirement...with a fair 
amount of Microsoft stock in my portfolio. Ever since the Reno/
Clinton ``Justice'' Department abused Microsoft through the courts, 
I have had my retirement portfolio abused also. The settlement has 
been accepted by DOJ and Microsoft, our nation's economy has already

[[Page 24933]]

taken enough hits, let Microsoft and the American economy serve our 
interests by growth and innovation. We have gotten rid of Reno/
Clinton, now let's get rid of the droppings they afflicted us with.
    END THIS NOW!!
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Smith



MTC-00007641

From: Robert Heffner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am writing to urge settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case 
now. I have personally benefited enormously in my work from the 
greater efficiency of Microsoft products, particularly the 
standardization of the PC platform. Although I am not a lawyer, I 
believe that this was a dubious case from the beginning, pushed by 
Microsoft competitors who had been soundly trounced in the 
marketplace.
    Ending this case now, when our country is struggling to regain 
economic growth, is in the best interest of our nation's 
international competitive posture, and, hence, very much in the 
public interest.
    Thank you.
    Robert H. Heffner



MTC-00007642

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop harrassing US business. There is no harm to 
the public by completing the Microsoft settlement now. To the 
contrary there is more harm to consumers and America to keep up the 
battle to assist a few of the competors.



MTC-00007643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    PLEASE settle this lawsuit with Microsoft with no further 
litigation. It has gone on long enough for a company that I feel has 
follwed the path that the strength of this country was built on. 
They started from nothing and built it into a very successful 
company. If other companies can't compete then they shouldn't be 
crybabies, but find a different product or become better competitors 
without running to the fed gov to solve their problems. Bill Linker 
PS: this is the first time I have tried to make my voice heard but I 
feel strongly enough about this to respond.



MTC-00007644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    I urge you to proceed and complete the Microsoft settlement 
during the first quarter of 2002. This long standing settlement need 
to be resolved NOW. I also urge you to accept Microsoft's offer to 
supply computer equipment to our school system and NOT cash. The use 
of additional cash in our schools will not improve the level of 
education of our children--computers will. I am suspicious of the 
motives of our administrators that the cash may be used for their 
own pet projects and wage increases. I don't trust the integrity of 
our school administrators. Throwing $$$ at the education system will 
not improved the education level of our children, it hasn't in the 
past i.e., lottery etc.
    Regards,
    Roy Tweedie



MTC-00007645

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft never did anything wrong...in business you deserve 
what you invent and earn from that invention!



MTC-00007646

From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:03pm
Subject: Enough already, callit quits
    Dear Sirs'
    Enough of this wasting the tax payers money, so that a few 
lawyers can make a killing of a bigger settlement. The settlement is 
fair ---end it all.
    Thank you
    Lawrence Novak



MTC-00007647

From: Candace Hawthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Atty. General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to commend the DOJ in it's wise settlement with 
Microsoft. I feel this needs to be wrapped up and completed and 
quickly as possible for the sake of the technology sector, our 
economy and Microsoft to restore the status quo. If it is at all 
possible for the DOJ to intervene with the nine states still 
pursuing further remedies of Microsoft that would also be supported. 
Without Microsoft we would not have as a tool in every home the PC, 
we never would have had the ease of use we have as well. I feel it 
is a HUGE mistake to a country to go after it's crown jewel. Happy 
New Year.
    Sincerely,
    Candace Hawthorne
    Metairie, LA 70001



MTC-00007648

From: Rose Rothe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  10:58pm
Subject: Settlement
    Enough is enough. Let this case be settled now. This company has 
done more for the American economy and for all us who are computer 
folks. If it were not for Microsoft, we would not be where we are 
now. It takes people who are innovative and visonaries to bring 
forth products as Microsoft has brought to the world. Again, please 
put an end to this case without damaging this inovative, visionary 
company.
    Rose and Dietmar Rothe
    Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA
    [email protected]



MTC-00007649

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that the DOJ should put the Microsoft 
litigation behind us. Microsoft has continually produced an 
excellent product with each new release better than its previous 
software and generally at lower prices. Microsoft has done this 
while incurring substantial costs associated with litigation and 
settlements. As a user I have never been forced to use Microsoft 
software, I have always had available to me a multiplicity of 
software to choose from and have selected support software based 
upon capability and support.
    I implore DOJ to let Microsoft get on with its primary business. 
From a user's point of view they have never been a monopoly as 
alternatives were always available to me, Microsoft was just a cause 
which the Janet Reno DOJ used to keep people from asking why some 
other more pertinent issues were not being investigated.
    Sincerely
    Dr. L. Kreuter



MTC-00007650

From: pernoid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The Microsoft settlement reached by the Court Of Appeals should 
stand & be the final end of the Microsoft litigation. This will 
definitely be in the interest of consumers, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Glory Perno



MTC-00007651

From: Borden Nettles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please move on to productive work and get out of Microsoft 
business. I have been ashamed of our government in this case because 
I believe the entire lawsuit was based on political motives rather 
than the law. I further believe the USDOJ action and the resulting 
media coverage in this case has in part been responsible for reduced 
confidence in the stock market. Thank you for recording my opinion. 
I am
    Borden Nettles
    Franklin, TN 37067



MTC-00007652

From: Charles H Caplan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's get this over with. Approve it as it stands and let's get 
on with business.
    Charles H Caplan
    Bellevue, WA



MTC-00007653

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I want to applaud the Federal Government's settlement of the 
Microsoft

[[Page 24934]]

case and hope that the agreement willbe accepted by the Fed and the 
States. Please use this as one vote to continue on the path that has 
been proposed and let Microsoft get on with business.
    It is my opinion that the competitors of Microsoft have 
continued stir the pot and to encourage the remaining states that 
have not settled to ask for more limitations. The continued 
litigation that these remaining groups are attempting is causing 
confusion over Windows development for both third party developers 
and users of Windows. Wasn't the example of the IBM case where 
billions were wasted in trying to limit the size and power of a 
wealthy Corporation enough to show that the market place will do in 
time what will be done without Govt. Intervention?
    It seems that this is a case of State Government attempting to 
squeeze a successful Corporation for funds because the source of 
their usual funding (Sales Tax) is drying up. What possible good can 
the States litigation do for the consumers?
    The Clinton Administration's insistence of following through 
with this litigation has cost Technical stockholders a considerable 
amount in share prices over the life of the litigation. 
Additionally, the cost of the actual litigation has had to be a very 
costly drain on Federal Govt and Microsoft's resources. It would 
seem that this effort would be better spent getting bad guys rather 
than chasing one of our star Corporations in the Technical world. 
Now to have the States trying to squeeze more from Microsoft is only 
depressing the Tech market and innovation even more.
    Please curb the Antitrust Division and stop these unnecessary 
probes of our successful Corporations such as IBM, Microsoft, Intel, 
AOL, Cisco and AT&T. Govt. should not be creating problems for our 
leading Tech Corporations that have put America in the leading 
position in the Information Processing Industry.



MTC-00007654

From: Greg Sprinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Comments on the Proposed Settlement--Microsoft vs USA
    For the public record:
    As someone intimately familiar with computing in general and the 
computer industry as a whole, I have witnessed firsthand the adverse 
effects of Microsoft's monopolistic business practices and their 
devastating effects on consumers.
    In the last year alone, the computing public has lost one of the 
most promising consumer orientated desktop operating systems to come 
along in the last ten years, namely BeOS. BeOS had technology that 
simplified the computing experience for the average consumer, while 
at the same time had technology that was vastly superior to what is 
available under the Windows operating systems. The single most 
reason that BeOS could not succeed in the market, is the absolute 
death grip Microsoft has on OEM's and total control of the boot 
loader process.
    As a consumer of computer software and a concerned citizen of 
the United States, I have a real problem with the proposed 
settlement. I cannot see how the proposed settlement even pretends 
to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been 
found guilty. The proposed settlement contains no penalties--
monetarily or otherwise. None! It does not nothing to provide 
further competition or halt Microsoft's continuing maintenance of 
their monopoly of desktop operating systems. Perhaps the most 
disturbing part of the proposed settlement is the provision for 
Microsoft to determine who their competition actually is in regards 
to revealing API's and source code.
    While I believe the initial pursuit to break up the company was 
the best course of action, I would be willing to accept the 
alternatives being put forth by the nine states who have refused to 
endorse the proposed settlement. To add, the barest minimum of 
remedies possible should include the following 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. [Consumers who do not wish to purchase 
Microsoft products are not forced to do so].
    *Prices of Microsoft products through OEM's must mirror those 
same products in the retail channel so that products can compete on 
merit and not price alone. [Consumers must have a choice in 
competing office suite products at similar prices].
    *In addition to opening the Windows application program 
interface [API's], 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. [No consumer or 
organization must choose Microsoft products based on proprietary 
file formats or falsely perceived standards].
    *Any and all Microsoft networking protocols must be published in 
full and approved by an independent network protocol body. 
Furthermore, the controlling body should be a government agency such 
as the National Bureau of Standards and should apply to the industry 
as a whole. [All protocols must be available through an ``open 
source'' method of development with a small number of comitters to 
fix bugs and plug security leaks].
    *Microsoft must be made to realize that other operating systems 
have the right to exist and they shall do nothing to erase any or 
all entries in the master boot record. [Microsoft operating systems 
shall include utility software to enable dual booting of other 
operating systems when detected on computer hard drives--not just 
their own].
    The proposed settlement seems to have been made in haste and in 
light of of the attacks of September 11th with little or no thought 
for the long range implications--for the economy or national 
security. Many have accused the DOJ of a ``sellout'', but my opinion 
is that they are seeking a quick fix in order to revitalize economic 
growth.
    In a study released a year ago by the highly respected Center 
for Strategic and International Studies, Microsoft's operating 
systems actually poses a national security risk. Open source 
advocates have made a compelling case that prove publicly available 
and open programs, protocols and file formats are much more secure. 
We are a nation of computers, networks and a vast dependence on 
technology and as such, are a prime target for cyber terrorism 
attacks of untold proportions.
    I believe we, as a nation, are at a critical junction at the 
cross roads of the information technology age. In many respects, we 
are in the same position as that of the early days of the industrial 
revolution--where we had railroads of different scales, track 
widths, etc. In the case of the railroads, the problem was one of 
standardization and it caused loss of productivity and timely 
delivery. The computer industry desperately needs standardization in 
the same way; in protocols, file formats and programs. This, I 
believe, is the single most important part of this whole issue and 
the fact that Microsoft's sole business plan can be summed up as 
``control the standard''.
    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.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Greg Sprinkle
    3907 Lanyard Ct.
    Chester, VA 23831-7379
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00007655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    sirs, this suit has been tried to death.the remaining states are 
arguing for microsfts competitors in their home states not for some 
imagined u.s. citizens who supposedly are being overcharged for 
microsoft products.these competitors should compete with their 
products against microsoft not with their lawyers.let us comlply 
with the decision already in place and get out on with moving 
business ahead.
    sincerely,
    george o. mills
    lavallette,nj 08735



MTC-00007656

From: James Rhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Selltlement
    It is my firm belief that any more litigation against Microsoft 
would once more plunge the tec. markets into another freefall just 
as two years ago when weak insecure corporations turned to the 
Clinton justice department for help. If the government wants to 
bring on another down cycle, just keep pounding away at the one 
company that truly

[[Page 24935]]

knows how to innovate and develop solutions to complex problems. Why 
is it that people who know how to get things done are always being 
attacked by those who can't? The more I see the law being applied in 
this country, the less respect I have for it. Lawyers, journalists, 
politicians--they build nothing yet suck the life out of everything.



MTC-00007657

From: Paul Monson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I have been a computer user for many years. I owned one of the 
first IBM-PC produced and have continually upgraded. I remember the 
days when competing Operating Systems were available and I am glad 
those days are gone. It was a nightmare having software that would 
work under one operating system but not another. I know monopolies 
in general are undesirable but in the case of computer operating 
systems they are much better than the alternative. I also do not 
have any problem with ``bundling'' of the internet browser. For many 
years I used Netscape as my preferred browser even when Internet 
Explorer was the default browser installed with the Microsoft 
operating system. I have now switched to Internet Explorer simply 
because it is now better than Netscape, but I would still be running 
Netscape if it were superior.
    I think it is time to lay-off of Microsoft, I believe that most 
people feel as I do that in general we are much better off with 
Microsoft as is rather that broken-up or otherwise handicapped. I 
have found that most Microsoft products are superior to competing 
products> Why can the public not be able to use such superior 
products.
    I am not a Microsoft employee but a individual public citizen.
    Paul Monson



MTC-00007658

From: Michael Beers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello, my name is Michael Beers. I'm a hard-working friendly 
American male. I'll make it short. Settle the Microsoft case now. It 
is unfortunate in this country that success, when deemed 
``excessive,'' is so despised that we have to attempt to destroy it, 
to make it small again, to make it average. Pay no attention to the 
2 billion dollars Mr. Gates gave to charity this year, to the 
stimulus his company provides our economy, and to the fact that my 
computer running his software is one of the most important objects 
in my life. Leave Microsoft alone! Leave business alone! Let the 
market decide whose products to buy.
    Keep your creepy, altruistic hands off.
    Thank you. Did I make my point clear?
    Michael Beers
    Michael Beers
    michaelbeers.com
    [email protected]
    785-749-3649



MTC-00007659

From: CHARLES E KESSLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    My family nor I have never worked for or had any connection to 
the Microsoft Co. and I do not own any Microsoft stock. My only 
connection is that I have a personal computer that uses Microsoft 
software.
    It has always been my opinion that to penalize Microsoft for 
improving its software for the benefit of its customers is crazy. 
The freedom to innovate and provide better software should be 
rewarded not penalized.
    The only reason for these lawsuits is to benefit the attorneys 
and the politicians who support Microsoft's competitors.
    Charles E. Kessler
    3000 S. Graham St.
    Seattle, WA 98108
    206-725-3279



MTC-00007660

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end this action and lets move on!
    L.C. Foster
    Tampa Fl.



MTC-00007661

From: Rick Salvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really don't understand why the Government is trying to 
destroy one of the world's best achievements. You can buy a 
Microsoft product that is reliable and utilitarian for less than 
what most attorneys charge for 2 hours of their time. Where is the 
injustice here? Their products will last a lifetime (even though 
they will be improved upon constantly). This whole thing is a big 
waste of time and money. Just look at what breaking up the phone 
company did. We now pay about 5 times as much for less service and 
have 2 to 3 bills for what once came in one every month! Even if 
some companies are considered monopolies maybe that is the most 
efficient way to do some things. Leave Microsoft alone and see if 
all the lawyers involved can add some utility to the world in stead 
of profits in their pockets. Settle the suit and let's get on with 
life and look for things that need fixing.
    Sincerely
    Rick Salvo



MTC-00007662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:16pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    I am voting for the settlement as outlined.



MTC-00007663

From: Ruth A. Lucchesi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    I fear that Microsoft will emerge from the Justice Department 
and and State anti-trust lawsuits with little or no penalty.
    Microsoft's offer to spend money to equip schools with their 
brand of software is certainly not a penalty for them...it is 
advertising cost. If they are permitted such an easy fate, all of 
the creative alternatives to the WINTEL platform will be effectively 
crushed. The Apple operating systems long used by schools will be 
drowned by the onslaught of Microsoft technology.
    Monopoly power in Microsoft's hands is no different than it was 
in the hands of Rockefeller and Standard Oil nor Ma Bell. Absolute 
power (monopoly) corrupts absolutely.
    Please consider the fate of other creative methods for computing 
and insist on a penalty for Microsoft that will break their 
monopoly. The company should be split into at least two separate and 
competing companies...one for software and one for an operating 
system. Judge Green's decision to split Ma Bell made possible the 
many innovations we have in telecommunications today: cell phones, 
pagers, portable phones etc. The next generation deserves the same 
opportunity to have similar computing technology at their disposal.
    Please split up Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Ruth A. Lucchesi
    127 Riverside Drive
    Northfield, IL 60093-3238



MTC-00007664

From: 4glh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just wanted to voice my support of the Microsoft settlement. I 
do believe that they were unfairly targeted by the government in the 
first place, but since they agreed to this settlement it should be 
honored! Then the whiners and complainers form both the other 
software companies and the Government (who really deserve none of 
Microsoft's money.. they already pay their taxes) should get out of 
it and leave them alone. Hopefully they can still succeed even after 
their unfair and I believe unlawful persecution.
    Let their settlement stand.
    GL Holmlund



MTC-00007665

From: cliff bristow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is in reference to the Microsoft Settlement...I am sick and 
tired of the mess that special interest groups are creating and feel 
that the government could best serve the people of this great nation 
by dropping everything. Microsoft has consistently given me all that 
I have paid for and so much that I didn't pay for. If I need an 
update for a Microsoft product that I use, they have always given me 
that update at no charge. Yes, they do charge me if I want to 
upgrade (like to Windows XP), but, it is my choice whether to 
upgrade or not. Microsoft is not forcing me to do something that I 
do not want to do and I for one am tired of people trying to tell me 
they are. I am a strong supporter for Microsoft and believe that 
they are serving all of my needs.

[[Page 24936]]

    Sincerely,
    Cliff Bristow
    Hebrews 11:1
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of 
things not seen.
    Cliff



MTC-00007666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. Just close out the settlement you already 
reached with Microsoft and move on. Microsoft is one of the world's 
greatest companies that has done more for benefiting mankind than 
almost any other company in the past 10 years. The whole technology 
revolution of the 1990's would never have happened without 
Microsoft. Microsoft bashers are just jealous of Bill Gate's 
success.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007667

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please finally settle this case as per the terms negotiated by 
Microsoft and the DOJ and allow Microsoft to get back to work 
writing software and stimulating the economy rather than remaining 
an unending source of income for the plaintiff's bar. It's enough, 
get rid of this case. You are not there to defend Microsoft's 
competitors from competion.
    Harvey W. Topilow, MD



MTC-00007668

From: John Petrocci
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that the courts intrusion in the way a corporation 
manages it business is unwarranted. It became evident the courts 
were favoring the competitors. I liked the settlement. There are 
many other companies that could be prosecuted if judged in the same 
manner that Microsoft was scrutinized.



MTC-00007669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the settlement as I fully support Microsoft's 
freedom to innovate.
    William K. Topper
    968 E. 125 S.
    Ogden, Utah 84404-4006
    [email protected]



MTC-00007670

From: Alan Hagerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
Subject: My opposition to the DOJ Suit vs. Microsoft
    Gentlemen....While I am by no means an expert, I do believe that 
Microsoft was not and is not now, a monopoly. I believe that 
companies who were competitors of Microsoft, got the government to 
take the lead to bring Microsoft down or at least, break it up.
    I did obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from Miami Univ, Oxford , 
Ohio and a CPCU Degree From the Insurance Institute. My major in 
college was economics. I feel that a great deal of Taxpayer money 
has been wasted and that the devastation of the stock holdings of 
Americans (particularly in the computer field) has been great. I am 
pleased that the US Govt Doj program is ending and I feel that the 
states who are still holding out should cease and desist their 
actions too.
    I am a retiree, recently retired from the General Insurance 
business. I have never missed an opportunity to vote and I chair the 
Conservative Party of Ontario County, New York. Thank you for 
requesting my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Hagerman, Chairman



MTC-00007671

From: Paul Graeber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:26pm
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. 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.
    Paul Graeber
    Paul and Sherri
    [email protected]



MTC-00007672

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:27pm
Subject: RE; microsoft settlement
    I HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS AND I 
FIRMLY BELIEVE IT HAS FINALLY COME TO A SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE 
CONCLUSION. I REFER TO THE LONG AT&T CASE WHICH TOOK MANY YEARS AND 
RESULTED IN A HUGE EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SUBSTANTIALLY 
INCREASED TELEPHONE USAGE COSTS TO THE CONSUMER. WHAT MAKES IT EVEN 
MORE LUDICROUS IS THAT THE SPLIT COMPANIES HAVE MANAGED TO ALLY 
THEMSELVES WITH EACH OTHER. THOSE WHO DESIRE TO EXTEND THE 
CONTROVERSY ARE DOING IT FOR SELFISH PERSONAL GAIN. LET US AVOID 
ANOTHER AT&T DEBACLE.
    VERY TRULY YOURS----
    DAVID KAUFMAN



MTC-00007673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Enough is enough, time for settling this matter once and for 
all. Put a stop to these delays so that MS can get back to business. 
They have provided a service for us consumers that has been 
extremely important in the advancement of computer science. So many 
Americans can now and do, have computers in their homes. I believe 
without MS this would not have happened.
    Why do we want to punish a company that brought USA to the top 
of this industry?
    Kathleen Laitila



MTC-00007674

From: Erol Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: please complete the settlement
    We've used up enough taxpayer money (my money) to punish the one 
company that has done more for consumers and computing than any 
other. Let's put an end to the ``don't innovate, litigate'' credo of 
the lesser companies. If they'd higher great engineers to make great 
products, and get out of the courts, maybe they could compete.
    As a registered voter, I'm adding my vote to complete the 
settlement and get America moving again towards innovation!



MTC-00007675

From: Patty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the settlement reached in the Microsoft case is fair. 
Please make it final and let Microsoft and the American public get 
on with life.
    Thank you.
    P. Lea



MTC-00007676

From: Jimmy.Chan@Dictaphone.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing this reguarding to the Microsoft Settlement Case as 
a consumer, my point of view is the case has been prolong enough. It 
is bad for the economy, derail innovation for new technology. 
Majorily of the public are aware they do have a choice to choose 
from all vendors of software makers and they are more acknowlegeable 
reguarding what they buy from a decade ago. Also, technology has 
been advanced so fast, even the laws can't keep up and I understand 
you want to protect the consumers.
    So, let us decide what's best for the consumers and ends all 
litigation asap when there is a fair settlement presented on the 
table for all parties already. And get the economy moving on all 
cylinders again. Thanks for letting me voice my point of view. Good 
Luck!

[[Page 24937]]

    Jimmy



MTC-00007677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on, lets get this show on the road and finalized. We have 
wasted far too much time and money for no real purpose. Let's step 
up to the plate and get it finalized. Microsoft is being more than 
fair--enought already. Make it happen.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Paul E. Monson



MTC-00007678

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern, The settlement accepted by Microsoft 
should be accepted by the Court and Microsoft should be afforded 
quiet enjoyment to innovate and pursue its business.
    The entire case against Microsoft is study of abuse of 
government power against the private sector--Microsoft drove our 
high tech economy and dramatically increased productivity in 
America. We owe the success of the 90's to the catalyst 
``Microsoft''. Bill Gates and his team are the new American heroes 
of our capitalist system, Microsoft brought low priced products to 
the service of all. Microsoft succeeded against all competitors 
world wide--they won the Olympic Gold of Business for America and 
the American government tried to punished them due to complaints 
from inefficient high price competitors with friends in Congress.
    It is time to end this tragic mistaken case and move on. In 
addition to settlement the Federal government and especially the 
States should apologize to Microsoft and its shareholders.
    God Bless a Free America
    Carl A. Merz
    President
    Hartford Aviation Group, Inc.



MTC-00007679

From: Richard Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement --- Richard Lewis --- 
[email protected] --- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real 
Internet.
    I believe the Microsoft settlement was good and fair and that it 
should not be overturned by special interests. Litigation is a sorry 
method of resolving problems, especially since consumers have not 
suffered from Microsoft's actions.
    Richard F. Lewis
    22 Tollridge Ct.
    San Mateo, CA 94402



MTC-00007680

From: John Buttel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First of all I do not own any Microsoft stock at this time and 
am not now nor will I ever be employed by Microsoft. I do use the 
products created by the company and have never had a complaint or 
felt that I my choices were being limited in any way by monopolistic 
practices. Prices for Microsoft products are fair to me the consumer 
and services have been more than satisfactory. I have felt from the 
beginning of the legal action that my government was suing a company 
on behalf of other competing companies that could not do it on their 
own. I am not anything more than a casual computer user that has 
never found a time or place where I had to use a Microsoft product 
when I did not want to. Just because they were able to come up with 
the dominant operating system for the personal computer in the right 
place and the right time they should not be punished continually for 
it. Please let the market place decide what it wants and stop 
wasting my tax dollars on litigation against Microsoft. In the Bible 
God tells us not to sue one another.
    Thank you, my name is John ([email protected])



MTC-00007681

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:34pm
Subject: settlement
    I think the proposal to have Microsoft donate software to 
schools is excellent. Please lets get this terrible burden to our 
economy over with and settle this case. Sun, oracle and there states 
will never settle so please make them.
    Tim Carey, MD



MTC-00007682

From: Purdue
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept of Justice:
    Please settle this case as soon as possible. I do not think that 
delaying the settlement will solve anything further. Personally, I 
see the nine states that are in a quandary as inhibiting and not 
expediting legal or just settlement of this case by any further 
prolongment.
    Barbara Purdue
    Citizen USA



MTC-00007683

From: charles bolton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:39pm
Subject: The action currently being pursued against Microsoft 
creates a Business
    The action currently being pursued against Microsoft creates a 
Business climate of uncertainty that prevents them from continuing 
to innovate and develop new technology that will provide business 
opportunities and create additional jobs, investment opportunities 
and other revenue streams. Microsoft has been punished enough by 
this long drawn out court action, delays, missed opportunities and 
legal costs. Implement the settlement as decided by the Courts. 
Continuing to re-open the case on hearsay and speculation is a 
violation of the equal protection of the laws of the US Constitution 
and probably a violation of due process.
    In these un-settled economic and chaotic world climate we need 
stability and a level playing field to allow us technology to stay 
in the lead. Do you think the Chinese and all the other techno 
wantabees are tying the hands of their premier technology companies. 
No! Keep it up and you will erode our global technological edge.
    There are winners and losers in the market place all the time. I 
saw my company that had a good product and technology go down the 
tubes due to the dot.com melt down and we were not a dot.com 
company. So encourage competition and let people innovate and 
computer and stop listening to the cry babies.
    Cordially
    Charles Bolton
    [email protected]



MTC-00007684

From: scott juetten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:31pm
Subject: MS Antitrust case that never ends!
    To Whom it may Concern,
    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 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.
    Respectfully,
    Scott & Rochelle Juetten



MTC-00007685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is respectfully submitted that the Microsoft litigation at 
bar represents a politically motivated abuse of the American 
judicial system. The conclusions and findings of the Court appear to 
be an overly simplistic, almost academic, approach that bears little 
relevancy to the real world of average consumers such as myself.
    It is at best absurd that absolutely no consideration appears to 
have been given to

[[Page 24938]]

the fact that the explosion of the internet is almost exclusively 
the result of Microsoft's bundling which effectively gave consumers 
``all'' they needed to permit them to wander through the internet. 
I'd call it one stop shopping-a convenience-not a punishment.
    It is equally absurd that no consideration has been given the 
issue of whether any of the ``competitors'' who were ``excluded'' 
actually offered products that were truly innovative and competitive 
with Microsoft's products.
    Finally, the penultimate absurdity of the litigation is the lack 
of any proof that consumers would have benefited financially or 
otherwise had circumstances been as the Court believed they should 
have been.
    If Microsoft is willing to accept the proposed settlement, it 
should be approved. The Court and the State Attorneys should not do 
any further harm.
    Respectfully yours,
    William J. Breuer
    22 Nassau Blvd
    Garden City, N.Y.



MTC-00007686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    I have been concerned about the Department of Justice lawsuit 
against Microsoft. I began using Microsoft products in 1981 when I 
bought my first IBM microcomputer. Nothing in my lifetime has 
increased my productivity and work enjoyment as much as the 
microcomputer and Microsoft software. Their creativity and 
entrepreneurship helped millions of other people and me. I have 
worked at four universities and most recently as Vice President for 
Finance and Administration at the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville. I recently retired but was thinking back to 1981 when I 
bought six microcomputers and established three residence hall 
computer labs at Central Michigan University. I think these were the 
very first residence hall computer labs in the country. Many 
students benefited from those labs and the Microsoft software we 
used. From that early beginning I certainly could not have predicted 
the full impact of either the software or the microcomputer. I have 
been forever grateful to Bill Gates and all the Microsoft people for 
providing such productivity enhancements. I am happy to hear that 
Attorney General John Ashcroft has ended the Department of Justice's 
three-year antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft with a settlement. I 
wholeheartedly agree with the Attorney General's decision to get it 
over with.
    The complex agreement is full of provisions that will 
permanently change the software industry and I personally do not see 
a one that I would consider positive. Everything about the agreement 
seems to me to be aimed at reducing creative endeavor. The 
government even created an ongoing technical oversight committee to 
review Microsoft software codes, and to test Microsoft compliance to 
the agreement. Nevertheless, I am glad it is over. What disturbs me 
is that some government officials and Microsoft competitors aren't 
satisfied with the decision and want tighter screws on Microsoft. I 
ask, ``How far should the government go on these issues? Free 
enterprise needs a break!'' My hope is that Microsoft will produce 
even better software in the future that will help all of us. I am 
doing some consulting now and my son is a software developer who 
uses all of Microsoft's development software. I don't want to see 
anything standing in the way of improved software.
    Our tax money should be used to deal with the urgent matters of 
the day. In my opinion, the federal government doesn't need to take 
any more action on this issue. Please end the Microsoft lawsuit 
permanently.



MTC-00007687

From: Barbara Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to settle this mess, for the good of all. Why prolong 
it any longer. Prolonging the settlement hurts the economy and 
really hurts everyone. Those that don't want to settle are the ones 
that are really greedy. Let's get it over with.



MTC-00007688

From: Jim Gasparich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As an avid computer user I feel strongly that the settlement 
arrived at between Microsoft and the DOJ was fair and in the best 
interest of consumers like myself. Further litigation is a waste of 
taxpayer money and will not help consumers but rather competitors 
and the political careers of ambitious AG's. Please do the world a 
favor and end this.
    Sincerely,
    James P Gasparich, M.D.



MTC-00007689

From: Wendall Mayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ,
    Please, it is time for this issue to be put to rest. The entire 
case revolves around the fact that Microsoft's competitors do not 
have the will or desire to get out and work hard to develop the 
technology to compete with Microsoft. They would rather cry and go 
running to the government. Why not, it is easier and cheaper for 
them. Microsoft pumps millions of dollars into the US economy. They 
have for many years and they can for many more if everyone will just 
leave them alone. In addition, Microsoft develops technology that 
not only makes the US stronger, but also makes it easier for the 
average consumer to do what they want to with their personal 
computer. In addition, Microsoft delivers this technology at a 
tremendous value.
    Thank you!



MTC-00007690

From: SamuelWines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that enough resources have been expended to date and 
that it is time to move ahead. Microsoft is not perfect and 
certainly should be monitored but is it not time to move to more 
pressing issues?
    Sam Wines



MTC-00007691

From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I think the Clinton Administration made a terrible mistake in 
using the Dept of Justice in trying to break-up Microsoft. MS is the 
with the recourses and talent to compete with foreign governments in 
the development of new and sophisticated software. The remaining 
states have no case and there has no damage to them, therefore, they 
should give up there in pursuit of MS.
    Thank you for your kind attention to this matter--
    Perry Du Long



MTC-00007692

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on way too long now. PLEASE settle this ridiculous 
case and lets move on. Microsoft is an incredible company and I 
can't believe I live in a country that penalizes it's citizen's for 
being innovative and successful. Its disgraceful the way our 
government has treated our own company that we should be proud of. I 
used to live in Mexico and down there the people couldn't believe 
what the USA was doing. It was really embarrassing to try and 
explain it.
    SETTLE THE CASE!



MTC-00007693

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A reasonable and fair settlement has been reached. Lets stop 
seeking to damage the future of one of the few remaining American 
companies that is truly a leader in global business and quickly 
ratify the settlement.
    K. Cadematori 1/2/02



MTC-00007694

From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ--
    Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If 
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any 
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how 
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against 
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the 
way.
    Jim Renfrow
    2400 Columbine Lane
    Montrose, CO 81401-5646
    [email protected]
    (970)-249-6511

[[Page 24939]]

    PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my 
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.



MTC-00007695

From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: hello
    i want to say, that i dont like the settlement that the DOJ has 
reached with microsoft, this is not helping the consumers, and of 
course, not helping the economy at all, microsoft allways had the 
winner track on all these computer business, i think that we are 
loosing the economy on the computer market with this settlement, the 
9 of the 18 states started this because microsoft's MONOPOLIC 
tactics, they started this because the POWER AND THE MONEY that 
microsoft have win in this computer market is not ALLOWING other 
little companys to start or to reach a good market, because 
MICRO$OFT can buy the competitor... or add a ``new free feature'' to 
the next os, and the competitor will be down and dead, and microsoft 
will not spend more money again, this is not helping the AMERICAN 
ECONOMY, this is helping MICRO$OFT ECONOMY, i was wondering why? i 
can travel to USA proof that im good for the USA economy and the 
American Gov. will loan me money to start, so i can grow as a 
business in the USA, a country that i love, and i will like to live 
on, but what happens here? with this settlement the only thing that 
you, DOJ, 9 states of the 18 states are doing is destroying the 
chance of people like me or any other little company that wants to 
start something in the computer market, why should i do it? if i 
will loose against microsoft in one way or another? this settlement 
is not protecting the AMERICAN ECONOMY and that is the big 
mistake...
    because in the way this is handle, 5 years of restricted stuff 
for microsoft? what is that? microsoft agreed in other settlement to 
pay 10 billons, that shows to you how much they care of that 5 
years, in the 6th year they can recover all the money they loose, 
please, dont give them the chance to destroy the american economy, 
this cant be tolerated!!!! the american economy is not moved by 
microsoft, is moved by hundres or 1000! of people that wants to 
start something or a business in that great country! but in the way 
this is going, microsoft will be able to do whatever they want, that 
is bad!! very bad!
    microsoft can loose 10 billons of dollars but they know that 
they can recover it once again when the 6th year is reached! or by 
going back to their tactics! the split of the company was the best 
to do!!! but if you cant make them do that then go for the proposed 
by the 9 REBEL STATES the open of the code of IE and other things 
they had in mind please! do it for ALL THE ECONOMY, not just 
MICRO$OFT ECONOMY this move, and the tactics that microsoft allways 
used is destroying the little and medium companys arround, and in 
some years, you will have nothing, and who can we blame about that?



MTC-00007696

From: Bob Windom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:49pm
Subject: My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I am a 
county commissioner as well.
    We fully beli My husband and I are owners of small businesses. I 
am a county commissioner as well. We fully believe that the 
Microsoft settlement is just and fair. It serves us well as 
consumers both in private life, the small business sector, and local 
government. We, therefore, encourage you to move forward with the 
settlement.
    Robert and Rita Windom
    303 Voves Ave.
    Libby, MT 59923
    406-293-6764



MTC-00007697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice, I am in favor of the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. It is time to get this settled so the economy 
can move forward and recover. Thank you.
    James H. Baker



MTC-00007698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
    In the interest of the public, I would like an agreement on the 
current settlement. A few sour grapes would like to prolong this for 
there own interest, in the long run this is going to cost us all 
money and won't accomplish anything. Not all Microsoft products are 
perfect, but they are generally better than whatever else is around!
    Sincerely,
    Robb McCullough



MTC-00007699

From: Leslie Veres
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement and see no reason to 
prolong this case one minute longer than necessary. Please complete 
the settlement process and apply the Department of Justice resources 
to more important needs.
    Thank you very much.
    Leslie L. Veres



MTC-00007700

From: Ann Whalen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle this case. I am a taxpayer and have paid 
for this case to go on and on. As a consumer, I have enjoyed an 
operating system that is innovative, creative and an American 
product. Let's spend time, money and energy on ``fighting'' cases 
that negatively affect the American public.
    Thanks, Ann Whalen



MTC-00007701

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madams:
    I sincerely hope that the Microsoft Settlement, otherwise known 
as the Tunney Act, would be implemented as soon as possible. Any 
other course would constitute yet another blow to our struggling 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    C. Lawrence Roberts, M.D.
    23720 S.E. 18th St.
    Sammamish, Washington 98075-8109



MTC-00007702

From: David Hemler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is in the best interests of the country and 
consumers. I fully support the settlement and hope that you will 
enforce its terms.
    David Hemler



MTC-00007703

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:56pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Please settle the case as soon as possible w/o hurting economy 
and citizen of this country.



MTC-00007704

From: kearypk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have been asked to comment on the settlement. I think that ANY 
settlement hurts both the consumer and our country's economy and 
ability to compete worldwide. However, I agree that this settlement 
is better that any more litigation and therefore agree with it
    Keary Kunz
    210 Jennings
    Wenatchee, WA 98801



MTC-00007705

From: Scott Cuddihy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this whole effort is a shame. Large scale damage has 
been done to our economy by the USDOJ in the name of anti-trust. The 
consumer has not been harmed by Microsoft, the consumer enjoys more 
value for its money than any other time in history. This action only 
benefits AOL-Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and Oracle to name a few.
    Please end this tragedy.
    Thank you,
    Scott Cuddihy



MTC-00007706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    TO whom it may concern:
    As a consumer, I wish to voice my strong opinion that you settle 
this case with Microsoft as it is now. The Tunney act is fair and 
needs to be implemented without any further delay. To delay is to 
prolong the

[[Page 24940]]

stifling effect on development. Do what is right and settle now.
    Timothy Messmer
    Anacortes, WA



MTC-00007707

From: marvin thurmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:00am
Subject: microsoft settlement
To: us doj
    To whom it may concern: Please settle the Microsoft case without 
further litigation. I believe this to be in the interest of the 
people.
    Thanks
    marvin c. thurmond
    44 camden way
    dallas,ga. 30157



MTC-00007708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wrote a letter to Microsoft some time ago supporting them in 
the legal actions. They provided me with this address to continue to 
show my support...I agree that the settlement seems to be in the 
consumer's best interests, and I would like the litagatin to cease.
    Anne Hazelton MD



MTC-00007709

From: Ronald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I Agree with California an the other eight states, that 
Microsoft is the one stalling. I agree with California and the other 
eight states. Microsoft should split into two or three corporations. 
They are a bullies.
    Ron Bush
    End User
    Ronald J. Bush
    [email protected]



MTC-00007710

From: SUE BONK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:04am
Subject: Dept. of Justice Put a sock in it! Settle this NOW!



MTC-00007711

From: Jasha Levi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is high time to let Microsoft be and let their competitors 
compete in the marketplace instead of trying to have the courts do 
it for them.
    Jasha Levi



MTC-00007713

From: David P. Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05am
Subject: comments on DOJ v. Microsoft
    Gentlemen,
    I am a professional computer software developer, and I've been 
working with and around computers for as long as Bill Gates (we're a 
year apart in age). While I have not read the proposed settlement in 
detail, I have read many accounts in the technical press that seem 
to be in fair agreement, and I thought I'd register my comments. In 
a nutshell, I think the proposed settlement is off-point and will 
have virtually no impact in the market place or to any useful extent 
with either consumers or end users. It's an attempt to compensate 
for market forces that were in effect several years ago and that 
might not be relevant today.
    For what it's worth, here's my opinion.
    I agree that Microsoft has created a monopoly. The issue before 
the courts was focused on products and product bundling; however, 
this is not the culprit. The monopoly that Microsoft has so 
effectively created really lies in a distribution channel that 
reaches over 90% of all computer users in the North American 
hemisphere, and probably a majority of ALL users worldwide. The 
problem with that sort of monopoly is that the monopoly holder has 
the absolute right to say what goes into that channel. It's not that 
the products Microsoft chooses to bundle are good, bad, or 
indifferent. The problem is that the consumer is LOCKED OUT from 
EVER GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE ANY ALTERNATIVES!
    Consider this: what if. . . 90% of telephone service was 
provided by Qwest? 90% of all grocery stores food distributors were 
owned by Safeway? 90% of all gasoline pipelines were owned by Mobil 
Oil? . . . And, the owners were also the produces of 100% of the 
products that were stocked and sold to their customers--meaning that 
all the services accessible by telephone (eg., long distance, voice 
mail, internet access, etc) were ALSO owned by Qwest; that 100% of 
the products found in a Safeway store were exclusively their in-
house private label brands; that all the gasoline and oil available 
through Mobil gas stations was produced and owned by Mobil Oil. It's 
kind of scary to think about, isn't it? You'd go to the grocery 
store looking for Quaker Brand Oatmeal, and you have to settle with 
some gloppy in-house brand because . . . the price of the Quaker 
Oats product would be twice the cost of the in-house brand because 
the ``house'' would take a few tens of million dollars for the 
privledge of ``bundling'' it with their other products. (Look what 
they wanted to charge AOL just to advertise their internet service 
in Windows XP!) What other company, distributor, news source, 
publisher, government, or ANYBODY exists ANYWHERE that has that kind 
of market penetration AND CONTROL? I cannot think of a single one, 
other than possibly the US Post Office!
    What is the impact on me as a software developer? Well, it's 
rather difficult for me to gain access to this distribution channel. 
In fact, it's practically impossible. AOL couldn't get into the XP 
distribution without practically selling their soul; what chance 
does a smaller company have? Z-E-R-O. That's the primary impact of 
this monopoly--when somebody buys a Compaq or Dell computer, the 
only products they get exposure to are from Microsoft (and a few 
other Fortune 50 companies that can afford the advertising costs). 
And that's mainly because of contracts between Microsoft and the OEM 
manufacturers. Even if those contract terms are relaxed a bit, 
there's no way that smaller vendors are going to get to bundle their 
multimedia players and text editors with those systems!
    The first automobiles were available in ``any color you want, as 
long as it's black''. That's ok when you're talking about a product 
market place with a few thousand or tens of thousands of customers. 
But today tens of millions of computers are sold each year. 
Nonetheless, as in Ford's time, consumers can get them outfitted 
with ``any operating system you like, as long as it's from 
Microsoft''. That's NOT a choice!
    One measure of the settlement should be this: how do consumers 
choices change as a result? Frankly, I fail to see how this 
situation will possibly change given the proposed remedies. Assuming 
the proposed settlement goes through, in a year or three, will the 
average consumer have any more choices to him as to what software 
gets bundled and/or installed on his computer? I really don't see 
how.
    AT&T was broken into several smaller pieces in order to separate 
the local phone access from the long-distance networks. Now the so-
called Baby Bells want to get back into long distance markets, and 
AT&T wants to get back into local access markets. What solution has 
been put into place? Local carriers can get into long distance when 
they've opened their local markets to some percentage of competing 
carriers, and AT&T can get into local markets when it can 
demonstrate that its opened it's markets to some percentage of 
competing carriers. That makes sense. The practical impact of that 
hasn't been very effective in the market place, but at least it's a 
start.
    WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE:
    As part of the settlement agreement, Microsoft should be 
required to include installation-time access to third-party products 
with every release of their software. The qualifications should be 
that anybody can submit anything as long as it meets certain clearly 
defined and easily measured criteria. That means that if AOL thinks 
that users might want to get access to AOL at the time they install 
Windows XP, the only option Microsoft has is to say ``send us a link 
to your web site''.
    One thing I believe is that Microsoft will claim that virtually 
ANYTHING is an ``integral part'' of the operating system if it suits 
their fancy. Rather than argue about it, I'd say ``the proof is in 
the pudding''. If Microsoft is including something in the release of 
one of their products, then they should allow third parties to 
submit similar products as well. In other words, if they want to 
claim that an Internet Browser is part of the OS, then they cannot 
say that other Browsers should not be include. Conversely, if 
somebody wants to bundle a word processor and Microsoft says that's 
not part of the OS, then they can refuse to include it. However, if 
someone wants to bundle something roughly equivalent to Notepad or 
Wordpad, which are acknowledged parts of the standard Windows 
operating environment, then Microsoft could not deny them trying to 
say that they compete with Word instead.
    In order to facilitate this, I'd suggest the establishment of a 
web site that is used to

[[Page 24941]]

promote third-party products that compete with things that Microsoft 
bundles directly in their products, and require Microsoft to modify 
their installer so that it connects to this web site at installation 
time and allows users to select among different tools available on 
the web site at that time. Some folks might not want to load the 
Windows Media Player, and might choose to install the WinAmp Media 
Player instead. Why not? Or, they could choose to load Netscape 
rather than Internet Explorer as their browser. If Microsoft wants 
to play games with the API so competitors' products don't work well, 
then play the same game as the phone companies--they can update 
their browser as soon as at least one other browser has been tested 
to be ``compatible'' with the operating system. Put the onus on 
Microsoft to provide CLEAR CRITERIA to facilitate successful 
compatibility testing.
    I'd also like to see something in the remedy that addresses the 
abysmal level of support that's currently available for Microsoft's 
products, primarily their 0EM products. Microsoft says that part of 
the reason they discount the licenses sold to OEMs is because their 
contracts require the OEMs to provide support. However, most don't 
provide any useful level of support, typically pushing it off on 
their retailers. Very few retailers ever hire the expertise needed 
to support Microsoft's products well. This is relevant to the 
monopolistic practices issue because it gives Microsoft a way to 
dis-own support needs for a very large percentage of its customers. 
If Microsoft was required to provide even a minimal level of support 
for their products, they would have to raise their OEM prices enough 
that the OEMs would in fact be in a position to make a viable choice 
among different bundling options. Today the OEMs are simply 
prostitutes for Microsoft products that they bundle with their 
hardware simply because nobody else can afford to offer them better 
deals. OEMs cannot afford to support the software that they bundle 
with their computers, and there's a tacit agreement that retailers 
and ``certified technicians'' will take up the slack. The truth is, 
they don't. But Microsoft gets the benefit of the doubt and is 
allowed to continue underpricing their products to OEMs using this 
fraudulant strategy. I think that requiring Microsoft to publish a 
single, uniform, OEM Price List that only offers volume purchase 
discounts and that imposes certain specific support requirements 
would go a long way towards solving this problem. (For example, an 
OEM can get an additional discount by providing the 800# for their 
phone support help desk. No support desk, no discount. Conversely, 
Microsoft would be required to provide the support for those OEMs, 
hence justifying the higher OEM price.)
    Finally, I like the option that several of the States have 
proposed that forces Microsoft to publish the source code for the 
core Windows operating system and utilities and require them to 
license it more openly. This would allow third-parties and even OEMs 
to use it to compose different configurations, much the way that 
Linux distributions are really different compositions of mostly the 
same code bases. It would eliminate most of the issues that have 
been keeping the OEMs hamstrung in their abilities to modify the 
boot-up processes of their machines, or shipping alternative 
browsers. It would also have a beneficial side-effect in that the 
OEMs would REALLY be required to support their products!
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    David Schwartz
    P.O. Box 34338
    Phoenix, AZ 85067



MTC-00007714

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: what I think
    waste of taxpayers money over nothing!!!!! I stand with 
Microsoft on this matter!!!!!!!
    Rich Tackett
    19811 Portal Plaza
    Cupertino, Calif. 95014
    408 253-7810



MTC-00007715

From: Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs
    I have been around the computer industry for 40 years and the 
one thing that stands out in the early days of the computer is that 
no companies were compatible with software or hardware. Now that one 
company got it all together and you can buy any hardware or software 
and be assured that it will run, the Government wants to shut this 
company down and change the whole industry and set it back to 1970. 
Microsoft has done it right and the only the disgruntled companies 
that can not compete want the Government to penalize Microsoft for 
being successful.
    There are a lot of small business that rely on Microsoft and 
Windows to be the same always. If you do not know how important this 
is then you must be talking to lawyers and not Computer Developers 
and Users that were there when using a Computer was not this easy.
    Carl Odiam
    760 343 3759



MTC-00007716

From: helen bloomquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I am in favor of the comprehensive agreement with Microsoft, and 
vote that the case be settled immediately, without further 
litigation.
    Helen Bloomquist



MTC-00007717

From: Kurt A. Buechler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    As a consumer, I am in support of the settlement of the DOJ 
lawsuit vs. Microsoft now on the table. In my opinion, the 
settlement is fair and should be enacted ASAP to assist the nation's 
economic recovery. I own no shares of Microsoft stock and share this 
opinion as a user of products and services of Apple, America Online, 
and Microsoft corporations. I am neither an employee nor beneficiary 
of Microsoft Corp.
    Sincerely,
    Kurt A. Buechler
    127 Claiborne Cove
    Ridgeland, MS 39157
    U.S.A.
    (601) 853-3638
    Kurt A. Buechler
    Ridgeland, Mississippi
    U.S.A.



MTC-00007718

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the settlement stand as is and let's get this fiasco over 
with. I thought this country was about entrepreneurship and better 
mousetraps, etc, but it seems to be moving closer to mediocrity 
every day, the result of penalizing anyone who can do something 
better than others. End it.



MTC-00007719

From: Richard Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: microsoft is a great company and has done nothing 
wrong!!!!!!!!
    microsoft is a great company and has done nothing wrong!!!!!!!!
    Rich Tackett
    19811 Portal Plaza
    Cupertino, Calif. 95014 408 253-7810



MTC-00007720

From: Rev. Bill Mounce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    Sirs,
    I am an often frustrated but dedicated Windows' user. I have 
been since Windows 2.1. At times I hate it. But I DO NOT believe 
Microsoft should be prosecuted for anything. They have been 
successful because, while they are not perfect, NO ONE has anything 
better. I feel it is their competitors whining because they are 
incapable of building anything better that has caused this entire 
mess at the taxpayer's cost. It is utterly ridiculous. If the other 
programs were better. . . I would definitely use them. But alas they 
are not and yet they want Microsoft broken up to cripple the 
company. The impact on the PC world and business' everywhere would 
be catastrophic. Let's end this nonsense now and let Microsoft do 
what they do best. . . build programs for the struggling PC 
industry. And if anyone else can build a better ``mouse-trap'', we, 
the consumers will judge with out money. Thank you.
    Bill & Shandy Mounce
    Leesville, LA 71446



MTC-00007721

From: Andy West
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. I

[[Page 24942]]

have read that certain clauses in section III of the purposed 
settlement give Microsoft rights unusual for a guilty party. Section 
III (D), in which Microsoft must disclose information needed for the 
software of other companies to interoperate with Windows, specifies 
in its footnotes that only commercial businesses alone receive these 
disclosures. This in effect bars universities, research laboratories 
and agencies of the Federal government itself from such information.
    Section III (J)(2) gives the right to determine what constitutes 
a business--for the purpose of licensing APIs, documentation, or 
protocols--not to the Department of Justice but to Microsoft. This 
gives Microsoft leave to shut out not just non-commercial entities 
such as open-source projects, but even federal agencies in the 
course of their own software projects.
    These are the only two clauses I have read about, but these two 
alone give Microsoft too much power to determine how the keystone of 
its monopoly may be used. I would like to ask that the settlement be 
renegotiated on at least these two clauses, if not for the sake of 
the open-source movement, then for the sake of the agencies and 
projects of the Federal government itself.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Andrew West
    202 East Washington Street
    Fairmount, Indiana 46928
    Tel: 765-747-2919 (work)
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00007722

From: padam2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:09am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please use taxdollars to do something usefull.Stop going after 
microsoft and use your intelect to stimulate the economy rather than 
forever piling up the fees paid to selfserving legal entrepeneurs.I 
am retired and will not visit any of the states that continue to 
oppose a microsoft settlement.



MTC-00007723

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage you to get this settled. The economy won't start a 
full recovery until this is settled. Get it off the books!
    Susan M. Swenson



MTC-00007724

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10am
Subject: settlement
    it is time that the issue surrounding Microsoft be completed--if 
the Dept Of Justice has concluded thier tsettlement than the 
remaining states shoud follow suigt and stop wasting the taxpayers 
money--the iswsues of monoply may have some vaility to it--but the 
benenfit far outweighs the punishment.
    Sincerly
    Carl Sanders
    200 Elm Street
    San Mateo. Ca. 94401



MTC-00007725

From: Khozem Poonawala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Microsoft, or any company for that matter, should have the 
freedom to innovate. The Microsoft case should be settled, now, once 
and for all. It is good for America and the american economy.
    Khozem Poonawala



MTC-00007726

From: George Aubrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: about time
    This settlement should go forward and not delay causing more 
problems for the consumer. This lawsuit has caused enough problems 
by not allowing Microsoft freely develop their software. When 
Microsoft begins to gouge the consumer with high prices of their 
software then lets get them, in the meantime let the consumer call 
the shots.



MTC-00007727

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I believe that Microsoft deserves fair and unbiased treatment. I 
am a supporter of Windows and of Microsoft integrating features. 
When the computer companies started, I could not afford the great 
features of the Apple and had to stick with a Vic 20. While dating 
myself a bit, I found Microsoft to be the only company willing to 
bring computing down to a level I could afford and my family could 
understand.
    Please stop the nonsense. There are bigger fish such as Credit 
Card Companies that need to be stopped and Oil and Car companies 
that should be providing better alternatives and more fuel efficient 
cars. If you have any questions, please feel free to email back.
    Thank you,
    [email protected]



MTC-00007728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can accept the ruling of the court BUT I feel that in an open 
society we can only advance if we provide an environment that 
supports innovative business strategies. Microsoft started from the 
bottom and made many investors wealthy, companies successful and our 
nation a leader in the software development. We need to ask the WHY 
should we handicap the leadership of current and future companies 
like Microsoft and allow them to ride on the coat tails by taking 
legal action.
    I, as an INFORMED consumer, knew what I had bought and what the 
consequences of my decision . . . I assume the responsibility and 
accountability of my decisions . . . AND others need to do the same. 
Microsoft would not have grown if through individual research their 
products were rejected as occurred in many areas of technology.
    John Bucelato
    301 Willards Way
    Yorktown, VA 23693
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007729

From: David Watkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13am
Subject: no subject>
    Dear Sirs: I am anxious to see the case against Microsoft 
settled in a manner that is fair to all parties, and does not 
infringe upon Microsoft's freedom to innovate, to make creative use 
of a free market to aggressively market its widely used and superior 
products to the world. I feel that a quick and fair settlement to 
this case is in the best interest of the consumers and the economy 
of our country. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express 
my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    David Watkins



MTC-00007730

From: Alex Melli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:15am
Subject: My Opinion
    To who it may concern:
    Regarding the Anti-Trust case against Microsoft Corp., and the 
pending penalty phase, I would like to register my opinion. I do not 
agree with the penalties being assessed. The proposed penalties I've 
heard, involving Microsoft contributing loads of computers and 
software to schools is not appropriate for several reasons:
--It is creating future users (i.e. customers) for Microsoft. It's 
like letting a drug company give a vitamin to schoolchildren, making 
them dependent on it and creating a future customer.
--This is actually a bonus for Microsoft, giving them more inroads 
to the education market!
--The penalty is a minor inconvenience at worst. For that 
corporation, it is the equivilent of a parking ticket.
--The were found GUILTY of a violation, so the price to pay should 
be a proactive move to repair their damage AND make sure it does not 
happer further.
--It is difficult to asses the value of any donated computers of 
software. Software should be assessed by physical cost of the 
product. So donating a single program does not count as $300, but 
the actual cost to the company, probably around $20.
    If Microsoft is to be properly penalized, one factor *should* be 
an educational donation. The order of money should be in the 
hundreds of millions (this is supposed to be a penalty, after all), 
and it should be a flat out cash payment. It should be left to the 
recipient of the money what to do with it, not the party being 
``penalized.'' And why should the guilty part have any say in what 
their penalty is in the first place? Iif I think that speeding 
ticket is too much, do I have any choice? NO. The law dictates my 
punishment, and I'm bound to that. Just because Microsoft is the 
biggest player in the game, they are still a player, not the 
referee.
    BOTTOM LINE: Microsoft needs to be PENALIZED for being found 
GUILTY. And

[[Page 24943]]

on a final note, the arguement that breaking up Microsoft would have 
too big of an impact on the entire computer industry (and the 
economy) should be proof in itself that the company is a monopoly. . 
.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Melli
    Laguna Beach, California



MTC-00007732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:16am
Subject: (no subject)
    Microsoft is the Ford Motor Company of the computer business. It 
is a shale to penalize a company for being the forward looking and 
the brains of the industry. Shame on the justice department, our 
government penalizing a company for doing what is correct, for 
inventing their components for their use in order to better serve 
the public.
    Ed Logue [email protected]



MTC-00007734

From: A. Bairamian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. I support DOJ decision to settle the 
Microsoft lawsuit.
    This ill-advised lawsuit--instigated by jealous competitors and 
presided over by a biased judge--has caused great harm to Microsoft 
and the entire tech sector.
    It is time to end this useless lawsuit, so Microsoft can go back 
to producing and innovating.
    A. Bairamian
    Glendale, CA.



MTC-00007735

From: David Demland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:17am
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    Dear Mrs. Hesse,
    Here are my comments about the Microsoft settlement.
    David Demland
    3506 E. Glenrosa
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    (602) 955-3248
    [email protected]
    Renata Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mrs. Hesse,
    I would like to introduce myself. My name is David Demland. I 
have been in software development for almost 15 years. I have work 
in all aspects of software development during my career. For the 
past three years I have been a Quality Assurance (QA) manager. I 
have spent most of my career centered on not only the software that 
is developed, but the way software is developed. I have worked hard 
to get developers to understand that we have to have a goal of ``no 
defects'', weather or not we can produce ``no defects''. I Have done 
everything from writing code to leading projects and development 
teams. I say all of this so that it may be clear that I am an expert 
in the area of software and software development. I wish that all 
the following comments are taken in that light. The following 
comments reflect my feelings about the U.S. Government and Microsoft 
settlement.
    I wish to thank the U.S. Government and the Nine States that 
have settled this long awaited case for all their due diligence and 
hard work to finally settle this landmark case. All of us in this 
industry are in your debt for this work. If for no other reason than 
that we now know that if a hi-tech company can obtain a monopoly 
they may break the law all they want to remove competition and 
nothing will happen. Not long ago I had the hope that free 
competition and a fair business ethic might return to our industry 
leader, I now know that will never happen. In July of 1998 there was 
a great article in the Arizona Republic about John D. Rockefeller 
and Bill Gates. This article was about a new book called ``Titan'' 
by Ron Chernow. This book told about Rockefeller and the author of 
the article showed how much alike Bill Gates was in respect to 
business. The only difference is that Rockefeller was not as 
successful as Gates in getting the government to accept that a 
monopoly should be allow to do what it wants with no penalties. Did 
the author of this article know something at that time that the rest 
of us missed?
    As I have read and followed just about everything that came out 
from the trial all the way down to this proposed settlement one 
thing has come to mind over and over again--everything being talked 
about seems to focus on how Microsoft has conducted it's business in 
the past and how to keep them from doing these practices again in 
the future. Yet everything points to how fast this industry changes. 
This leads to a simple question: How will restricting the way 
Microsoft conducted itself in the 90's apply to today's conduct when 
the business practices have already changed in the industry as a 
whole and Microsoft is doing the same thing but in different ways? 
As a guide I will use the Competitive Impact Statement that 
describes the way this proposal will work. On page 4 there are two 
bulleted points that came to my attention right a way, for reference 
they are the third and fourth bullet points. Both of these points 
are to ensure that third parties can work with Microsoft products. 
At this point there are no time lines mention, but the point is 
clear that this will be done so that third parties have time to get 
their products to work with Microsoft products. These missing time 
lines will need to be kept in mind, there will be times I will 
return to these points again.
    I find it interesting that on page 14 it talks about the court 
findings that: Microsoft threatened to cancel development of its 
``Office for Macintosh'' software, which, as Microsoft recognized, 
was critical to Apple's business. Microsoft required Apple to make 
Internet Explorer its default browser and restricted Apple's freedom 
to feature and promote non-Microsoft browsing software, in order to 
protect the applications barrier to entry. Yet the current 
provisions really do not address this behavior. Of course this would 
mean that Microsoft would have to have a monopoly on office suites 
was well. Since this has not been an issue in the court it needs to 
be looked at to understand the company culture. In the industry 
today, for the most part, it has been conceded that MS Office is a 
monopoly in the office suite arena 1. Will Microsoft use this tactic 
again? This will be certain.
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf A look at what 
has become known as the halloween documents will give a very detail 
insight about this issue 2. In the first halloween document 
Microsoft implies that a way to beat Unix in general would be ``Fold 
extended functionality into protocols / services and create new 
protocols''. This look shows that in the same matter that Microsoft 
blackmailed Apple they would blackmail the whole industry if they 
could. Many thought that Microsoft would never extend a recognize 
standard after the halloween documents were published, yet in 
Windows 2000, W2K, Microsoft did just that. A well known and 
accepted security standard was added to by Microsoft. This standard 
is called Kerberos. Once again the use of the Microsoft OS can be 
used by Microsoft to change the industry just by doing. Where does 
this behavior help the industry and the consumer except just to push 
Microsoft's dominance farther? In Wired magazine there was a comment 
about the change that Microsoft was going through at that time when 
Steve Ballmer was moved into Bill Gates position of presidency. 
James Wallace said: 2. These are internal Microsoft documents that 
was published on the internet. After these papers were published, 
Microsoft not only admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as 
far as to say this is the way they do normal business. These can be 
found at: http://www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://
www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/
halloween3.html, Ballmer's promotion ``represents a fundamental 
shift away from workgroup computing into not only enterprise 
computing but internet computing, which requires a different 
sensitivity'' 3. 3. Why Bill Gates Quit His Job, by James Wallace, 
Wired December 1998 Could it be that James Wallace saw what Consumer 
Federation of America just reported in September 2001 1? Once again 
I ask: How can Microsoft be held accountable in a 2001 software 
industry using a 1990's industry model when the industry has changed 
so much? Are we saying that when an industry changes fast enough a 
business that breaks the law should be allowed to because they can 
change the industry before any sanctions are handed out to them?
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf At the top of 
page 18 there is a discussion about what Microsoft Middleware is. 
The way this has been defined it allows Microsoft to tell the 
industry what the middleware is, not what the market believes. To 
understand how this effects the industry as a whole I will relate a 
story of a problem I ran into that cost the business I worked for 
eight months of work and left many of our customers in a bind. 
Microsoft create the Microsoft Data Access

[[Page 24944]]

Component, MDAC, to allow Windows applications to use different ODBC 
drivers to access databases. When Office 2000 was released, 
Microsoft release a new version of MDAC. This version of MDAC was 
not compatible with previous version. There were many problems with 
Microsoft including a new service pack release that had the same 
problems. To make a long story short it took eight months to get the 
two fixes to allow both of our products to work with this new MDAC. 
This is a very high price for a small business. Does this sound like 
a business that is trying to work with well their customers? What 
does this story mean to this settlement? Well if Microsoft can say 
what is middleware by themselves, what are companies like the one I 
work for to do? Are we always going to be expected to keep rewriting 
our products to match what Microsoft tells us to do just because 
they have a monopoly on the OS and they do not have to care about us 
as small businesses?
    1. Window XP / .NET Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, http://
www.consumerfed.org/WlNXP--anticompetitive--study.pdf
    2. These are internal Microsoft documents that was published on 
the internet. After these papers were published, Microsoft not only 
admitted that were real, but Microsoft went as far as to say this is 
the way they do normal business. These can be found at: http://
www.opensource.org/halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/
halloween12.html, and http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html,Wait 
a minute, this settlement dictates that this will not happen because 
middleware API's have to be disclosed. Take a moment at look closely 
at this case. Where in this story did anything deal with an API? In 
fact just after this Office release became a big enough deal to 
developers, Microsoft announced that MDAC would become part of OS 2. 
All these problems were backward compatibility issues and this is 
just one of the new tools Microsoft can use to control the industry 
in the new environment that has changed since the 1990's and this 
settlement does not even address these types of issues. Once again I 
ask, are hi-tech business allow to break any laws they wish and 
because the industry changes so fast there is nothing that can be 
done about it?
    2. This was at Microsoft developer days here in Phoenix that 
later the next year. This problem of Microsoft doing what ever they 
want to control the industry appears on page 19 as well. In the last 
paragraph a Microsoft Middleware Product mentions the Microsoft's 
Java Virtual Machine. Did you know that this no longer exists? 
Microsoft, after losing to Sun on the Java Virtual Machine, JVM, 
issues has now created a new language and drop support for JVM. How 
is this going to effect the industry? Once again because Microsoft 
is using it's monopoly power to force business to rewrite all their 
products. It is now clear how Steve Ballmer has lead Microsoft into 
the internet age the same way as Bill Gates lead Microsoft into the 
1990's. Their goal is to keep Microsoft the largest player no matter 
how it effects the consumer or other businesses. What do you think 
John D. Rockefeller would say today after seeing his business 
penalized and Microsoft left to doing it over and over again? What 
is the consumer to think? In all this there is another accomplice to 
the dirty deeds of Microsoft. This is the government. That's right. 
On page 20, the last three lines, the government has told the 
country do not start a business in an area that will compete with 
Microsoft Middleware it can not be allowed. Where do I get this 
from? It is simple, what was the last start-up company able to sell 
at least a million copies of their product from the start? I have 
yet to find one. So what this means is if there is a start-up in one 
of these areas do not worry Microsoft does not have to tell you 
anything. So just think, after spending a lot of money you will go 
out of business anyway. What a way to go. The government has said as 
long as the current competition can stay alive there will be 
competition, but once that competition is gone, O well. Once again 
thank you for looking out for the consumer. As it is stated on page 
21 this ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative 
obligations... being triggered by minor, or even, nonexistent, 
products that have not established a competitive potential in the 
market''. This is a great thought, if there is no competition, how 
can you be a monopoly? How is no new competition good for the 
consumer? I find the commits on page 24 at the bottom of the page 
rather odd:
    Thus, the key to the proper remedy in this case is to end 
Microsoft's restrictions on potentially threatening middleware, 
prevent it from hampering similar nascent threats in the future and 
restore the competitive conditions created by similar middleware 
threats. How is this going to be achieved if over a million copies 
are required on page 21? This seems to be a contradiction to me. Am 
I missing something? As if this has not been technical enough let's 
talk about how the dual boot is to be done on page 26. At the 
current time W2K was released with a small problem, it does not look 
at the BOIS for the hard disk information at boot up time. This 
basically renders tools like System Commander useless. So how is a 
consumer, or GEM, going to be able to use these tools if Microsoft 
bypasses common practices. Where is this address to ensure that 
there is no subversion to activating other partitions and making 
these tools and their manufactures useless. One argument is that 
this is an API that has to be disclosed, but if it takes months for 
this information to become available there is no way to have fixes 
in place for these companies that create these tools. This will be 
looked at close a little later.
    On page 27 is one of the best examples of how the government 
failed to help support the free market competition. Here the 
industry has been told that if you are not one of the 20 largest 
OEMs, that Microsoft licenses to, you can be locked out of 
information. This is great, once again any small company has been 
told that they should not enter into this industry. Does this mean 
that the government supports only having large business? If not how 
will a small business be able to compete under this section? Even on 
page 20 and 28 the message seems to be clear the top 20 OEMs are the 
only ones that count.
    On page 32 there are two issues. At the bottom of the page it 
talks about dual boot systems being allowed. As I have already 
talked about, how it this going to be handled if Microsoft continues 
to bypass standard practices on boot up? If tools like System 
Commander can be rendered useless what is going to keep Microsoft 
from allowing this same issues on a dual boot system to discourage 
OEMs from shipping these systems. Would it not have made more since 
to ensure that Microsoft uses the industry standards to ensure they 
do not subvert this issue? I think a very important issue has been 
missed in this area.
    The best part of this page is at the end of the first paragraph. 
I would like to thank you for penalizing all of us in the industry 
for Microsoft abusing their monopoly power. I find it outrageous 
that is was agreed that OEMs must use software substitutions that 
act like the Microsoft software that it is being substituted for. Is 
it assumed that these OEMs write their own software? If so that is 
wrong. There are many companies, like the small ones I have worked 
for, that do this software and you have just told them if it cost 
tens of thousands of dollars to rewrite their software do it if they 
want an OEM use your software in place of Microsoft. What did these 
businesses do wrong to deserve this penalty?
    On page 43 it talks about Microsoft putting information on their 
MSDN for APIs and other important information that has to be shared. 
I found this amusing because it does not say how this information 
should be handled on MSDN. In fact this has allowed Microsoft a 
great way to make more money off of developers. They can put this 
information on MSDN in a hidden place and when developers call to 
find it they can be charged to find out where it is. What a penalty 
for breaking the law.
    Now we come to the timeline items. On page 35 the proposal for 
the releasing of the XP APIs is a great try, but it still gives 
Microsoft about a year lead time to get a head of all the other 
developers. I have created, and maintained, this type of 
documentation at two different businesses in my career and in every 
case I have had this type of documentation before we got to far into 
the early stages of testing. Microsoft should already have this as 
well. It should not take more than two or three months, at most, to 
polish these API documents to make them public. I find it hard to 
accept that the definition of this timeline, for documentation, is 
different for the middleware products. I have a real problem with 
timeline of the last major beta before release before the first 
release candidate for the middleware products. In most cases this 
will be only a couple of months before the final release. This will 
make it hard for other developers to make changes to work in a 
timely matter. Especially when there are multimillion lines of code 
in many products today. Please see above about the MDAC story. The 
standard that the industry tends to follow for a beta test is best 
put: The product has completed all of the major features content 
that has been planned for the final release... During the beta 
release, the product

[[Page 24945]]

will be tested for it functionality, specifically with regard to 
defects.
    1. Michael E. Bays--Software Release Methodology 1999 Prentice-
Hall This definition makes it clear that the industry believes that 
at the time of the beta test all functionality is complete, this 
means that the APIs are complete as well, otherwise it would be an 
alpha test and the product is still changing. Does this timeline not 
allow Microsoft to hold back information for middleware APIs until 
it is hard for competitors to be ready at the same time as 
Microsoft? How does this keep Microsoft from locking out software 
like Netscape? Please see page 12. Pages 36--38 deals with protocols 
but it misses the fundamental problem with Microsoft and how they 
can hurt the industry and the consumer. How can protocols be talked 
about without including industry standards? Microsoft has shown that 
it will do what ever it takes to keep their monopoly. This has been 
well proven in the trial court level and upheld in the appellate 
court level. Yet this fact seems to have been over looked when it 
comes to the use of industry standard protocols by Microsoft. 
Microsoft has had proposals internally placed on the table to extend 
common protocols to help lock out competitors 1.
    1. Halloween documents http://www.opensource.org/
halloween1.html, http://www.opensource.org/halloween12.html, and 
http://www.opensource.org/halloween3.html, This issue was thrust 
into the fore front when W2K was released with Kerberos. Microsoft 
had extended this common industry standard to try to lock out other 
Unix computers. Microsoft's extension to this industry standard is 
also a major part of the European case against Microsoft. It also 
shows how much power Microsoft has to destroy computer connectivity. 
Why is it that nothing has been said about Microsoft doing as so 
many of the smaller businesses, in this industry, must do have to 
have these standards changed? That is make Microsoft have to go 
before these bodies to get these standards changed instead of being 
able to dictate to the whole industry a new standard. If this issue 
is not addressed Microsoft will be able to use this ability to 
change standards to continue their predatory monopoly actions even 
in the new Internet age. Can one company be allowed to dictate to 
the whole world how business should be ran? Should not Microsoft be 
forced to use common standards so that all competitors will have a 
chance?
    On page 39 the whole world has been told that Microsoft does not 
have to disclose protocols if these disclosures would compromise 
system security. Listed items are anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption and authentication 
features. First of all, Microsoft is not the only business that has 
had find ways to handle anti-piracy, antivirus, software licensing, 
and digital rights management. Every business that produces software 
has had these issues and all of them have found a way to make them 
work. The only difference is that all the other business have not 
always be able to have both the OS and the application under their 
control. So these businesses have turned to common industry 
standards, and practices, to find a solutions. Why should Microsoft 
be able to change these standards just because they are the largest 
software company and control the OS and office suites? As far as 
encryption and authentication, how does this section protect the 
industry and consumer from being blackmailed by Microsoft into lower 
or less secure standards?
    How can this type of control and influence be bad for the 
consumer? Bill Gates once said to the German magazine (FOCUS) that 
bugs (defects) are unimportant 1. Also Microsoft, itself, has 
documented that there were 63,000 known defects in Windows 2000, 
W2K, when it shipped 2. If it is more important to Microsoft to get 
the product out than to get a properly running product out, how can 
Microsoft be trusted to do a protocol standard right without other 
industry leaders giving input?
    1. FOCUS Oct 23, 1995--found on-line at http://www.cantrip.org/
nobugs.html
    2. Microsoft, Who Let the Bugs Out? osOpinion.com Oct 23, 2001--
found on-line at http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/14306.html Page 
40 allows Microsoft to enter into a contract with a developer that 
limits that developer from promoting other competing software if 
such limitation are reasonably necessary. The problem here is what 
does this really mean. For example, if Microsoft is working on a 
contract with a business that has some existing file converters to 
bring in other word processing formats into Word for Windows, 
WinWord, can Microsoft restrict the contracting company from 
exporting from WinWord so that there is no way to convert out of the 
Microsoft product? How does this wording work in the internet 
business model?
    On page 45 the second paragraph talks about removing middleware. 
How is this effected with help files? No matter what browser is 
installed on a Microsoft computer, when the HTML help system is 
invoked Internet Explorer, IE, is the only browser used to display 
the HTML files. This means that no matter what browser is used to 
surf the internet IE must be present for HTML help to work. How does 
this section handle this issue? Does this not allow Microsoft to 
continue this practice?
    Also on this same page it is talked about the technical changes 
to W2K and XP, yet it only gives a timeline for the XP changes. What 
happens to W2K? There are many consumers that have privacy issues 
with XP so it is very important that W2K changes must be made and 
W2K must be maintained.
    On page 48 it states that Microsoft can not prompt a user for 
OEM custom changes for 14 days. Does this mean that Microsoft can 
then prompt the user all the time until they get so feed up with the 
prompts they allow Microsoft to change the computer configuration? 
Why is this even in the document? Is Microsoft saying that if an OEM 
sets up a computer that users are to stupid to change the factory 
settings? Why not leave users alone altogether? I give you all a 
hand for the concept of the TC. This is a great way to ensure that 
Microsoft abides by the settlement without creating a whole new 
branch of the government to do the oversight. I have just one 
question: Who's stupid idea was it to add the section on page 58 
that the TC information can not be used in any proceeding before the 
Court? Is this a ``get out of jail free card'' for Microsoft? Are 
you trying to make it cost the tax payer more money to make sure 
Microsoft plays by the rules? Is this a loophole that Microsoft can 
use later so that it can get off the hook after it has failed to 
follow this settlement? What am I missing? This is something to lead 
the public to believe that Microsoft is paying a price for breaking 
the law when it is doing nothing but rewarding Microsoft for do 
something that no other company has been able to do; break the law 
and get away with it? This whole section should be removed.
    Again on page 60 it looks like there is another loophole that is 
good for Microsoft and not for the consumer. It says that after the 
initial five years of this settlement the Plaintiffs may ask for a 
two year extension. What happens if Microsoft still has problems in 
the two year extension, nothing? What is the public to think about 
this? If Microsoft puts up with the TO long enough that everything 
will go away not matter what? Is this fair for a company that broke 
the law? On page 62, where there is a list of relief that was looked 
at but not part of the settlement. In this list there were a couple 
of items that I find hard to believe were not part of this 
settlement. I find these two issues to hard to skip over with the 
weight of what this outcome has on the consumer and the industry as 
a whole. The first one not ensuring that Microsoft includes non-
Microsoft middleware in its distribution of the Windows Operating 
System. The example here was the Java Virtual Machine, JVM. I go 
back to what I said before, are we to believe that only Microsoft 
knows where the direction of the industry should be going? Or should 
we take it that Microsoft should be allowed to find new ways to 
maintain it's monopoly at the expense of the consumer? What is it so 
hard to about Microsoft being require Microsoft follow industry 
standards like any other business? Is everyone afraid that Microsoft 
would have to compete with more competition if this is done? After 
all is it unreasonable for Microsoft to lower the barrier to entry 
since that was one of the key points of this whole case?
    The other item in this list was requiring Microsoft to fully 
support industry standards. Was this dropped because to force this 
on Microsoft would also allow other competitors into the market 
place? Does this point to this whole settlement being nothing more 
than smoke and mirrors? These two items alone could have great 
impact on restoring competition to the market. How could these have 
been overlooked, or removed from the list? Now lets look at some of 
the other overlooked problems with this settlement. Right now 
Microsoft seems to have a lot of security problems. This may be 
misleading in some ways. What I mean is that Microsoft may not be 
any worst at security than any one else, but because there is no 
other real competition it makes Microsoft a perfect target
    1. This would lead one to believe that for the public's best 
interest there needs to be a viable option to the Windows OS. This 
will

[[Page 24946]]

 never happen as long as Microsoft continues down it current path of 
total monopolization of the PC OS. This is where this settlement 
fails the most. I would hope that this is not that hard to see and 
understand, am I wrong?
    1. Good security administration is crucial by Madeline Bennett, 
IT Week Friday October 19, 2001. On Page 10 of Competitive Impact 
Statement there is a perfect commit that says that users want to 
know the OS will have the needed applications before investing in an 
OS. This is important observation. Where does this settlement help 
towards that goal? Or is it that this goal is to big of a price to 
be paid for hurting the consumer and destroying competition with 
predatory practices? How could the Declaration of Carl Shapiro be 
overlooked when he said that one of the reasons that Linux failed to 
be competition to Windows is because of the lack of popular 
applications like Microsoft Office 1. This alone would allow 
competition back into this industry. So why not have Microsoft port 
its office suite to Linux? Would this not help restore true 
competition without rewarding Microsoft for breaking the law? If 
Microsoft had to port this suite and was required to support it on 
the Linux platform for three years would not that do much better 
over all? Just think, if Microsoft had a product line on Linux, it 
would be less likely to ``expand'' industry protocols to lock out an 
OS that it would be trying to recover their expense for porting to. 
What would be wrong with this? Or are you saying that the industry 
and consumer are not important in this matter?
    1. Declaration of Carl Shapiro page 3. These types of relief 
would go very far to really help innovation by allowing true 
competition back into the market place. This is what this industry, 
and the consumer, need. Overall the current settlement penalizes 
other business for Microsoft's conduct and it even rewards Microsoft 
for breaking the law. This is a shame. I hope that this is reject 
and a real settlement that benefits the industry and consumers is 
reached.
    In the above commits it should also be clear that this 
settlement, as currently proposed, will do nothing in keeping 
Microsoft from using predatory practices with the way the current 
market is moving. We can not expect reliefs based off of the way the 
industry worked in the past to apply to the way it does business 
today when it is a different business world and the current 
settlement does not take that into account. This must not be 
overlooked if real relief is to be made for the consumer and for the 
industry as a whole. There are many ways that this settlement 
encourages Microsoft to continue its current goals for removing all 
competitors from the market and that means there was a lot of wasted 
money to get a court ruling that does not change anything. At what 
point will it finally be accepted that Microsoft will only learn a 
lesson if it required to give up some of its monopoly power? When 
will the industry and the consumer finally be defended?
    Thank You,
    David Demland



MTC-00007736

From: Robert Corkrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Move on!!!!!!!!!!The few attorneys generals holding up this 
settlement need to understand that everyone but them has moved 
on.It's a new economy stupid! thanks Bob



MTC-00007737

From: ginih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I disagree with the tearing apart of Microsoft. It seems if 
anyone in the U.S. comes up with a wonderful invention there is 
always someone who is jealous of them. They want a part of it & so 
they sue. Look at A.T.T. the little companys wanted a part of them. 
So they sued every time they started to go bankrupt. They also use 
the Bell Co. lines at very little cost. Do you think we could go 
into McDonalds & rent their grills for very little money? I don't 
think sooooo. It's time to tell the sue happy people to crawl back 
in their holes. If they can't come up with good ideas of their own, 
don't let them sue & steal from the Co.'s that are contributing to 
the economy. Let Microsoft alone, they are the creative Company.



MTC-00007738

From: Charlotte Kenworthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, It is my opioion that the Microsoft settlement is a fair 
and just settlement. It is time to move on and put this whole ordeal 
behind us. Competitors and special interest groups have carried this 
far enough...let's abide by given settlement. Charlotte Kenworthy



MTC-00007739

From: CANDA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is time for the government to leave Microsoft alone. 
Why not go after the drug manufacturers and their deals made with 
insurance companies. The under the counter deals are not in the best 
interest of the consumers and should be covered by anti trust laws. 
Microsoft is o.k. and even though I do not use their internet 
services, they continue to give me excellent service. I agree with 
Ted Kennedy when he said the case against Microsoft sounded like 
``sour apples''.I will continue to use the products of Microsoft 
even if they are more expensive because their products are more user 
friendly. Thank you,
    Carolyn
    Hinton



MTC-00007740

From: Brent Kopp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as proposed should be accepted by both parties. 
True, MS is a tough and ruthless competitor. That will force anyone 
attempting to break their dominant position to develop a new 
software or computing method that will be a significant improvement 
in order to impress the using public. The ``market'' is a rough and 
tumble setting, the higher the reward the greater the energy and 
risk taking and the more likely chance of really better, as opposed 
to merely different, products that will benefit the using community.
    Their are times when the MS programs drive me crazy with their 
uncorrected programming errors, syntax mistakes and just sloppy 
lines of code. But I trust the competitive market more than a 
government agency to bring me relief. Also, in my opinion the former 
lawyers in the anti trust division gave too much credence to the 
complainers(Netscape etc.,) who perhaps influenced this entire 
affair thru their campaign contributions and their political allies. 
It has been sordid from the start, so let's get it put to bed.
    Brent Kopp
    [email protected]
    EarthLink: It's your Internet.



MTC-00007741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my opinnion, government should get out of the way of free 
enterprise and let it do the job it does so well!! Microsoft has--
and is--providing a good product at a fair price. Consumers are not 
unsatisfied!
    The ones unsatisfied are those who don't have the ability to 
compete. 
    Nels



MTC-00007742

From: Clyde w. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi ! I would like to see the Microsoft case settled and let them 
have the right to innovate ! Thank you !!!!
    Clyed W. Butler
    [email protected]



MTC-00007743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the government should settle, Micorsoft has been great for the 
ecomomy of the Northwest and has enabled business that use computers 
more competative.
    H.D. McBride



MTC-00007744

From: William C. Caccamise Sr. , M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has revolutionized the computer field and the 
practical use of the Internet by millions of people. It is the Jewel 
of the American capitalistic system. I have always felt that Mr. 
Gates should be given the highest civilian award offered by our 
government. The aggressive attack on Microsoft by the Clinton 
Administration was a disservice to the computer world and society 
itself.

[[Page 24947]]

    I know that my entire family including my grandchildren, my 
children, my wife, and myself--all avid computer users--are indebted 
to Microsoft for making the computer world and The Informational Age 
available to us in such a practicable manner. We hope that the DOJ 
will allow Microsoft to proceed freely in its unending goal of ever 
improving our access to the world of computers, software, and the 
Internet.
    Thank you Microsoft--and Mr.. Gates--for making the retirement 
years of this 78 year old physician years filled with excitement and 
learning.
    Sincerely,
    William Charles Caccamise Sr, MD
    12 South Pittsford Hill Lane
    Pittsford, New York
    [email protected]
    Telephone : 1-585-381-3855
    FAX: 1-585-385-1355



MTC-00007745

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to let the settlement regarding Microsoft go through 
for all states. It is of no benefit to anyone to delay this process 
any further. One of the many great American ideals is the free 
market economy in which the best companies can survive. Because a 
company is more innovative than its competitors is no reason to 
prevent it from continuing its business.



MTC-00007746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25am
Subject: (no subject)
    Tell these renegade states to knock it off and get back to the 
nations business!



MTC-00007747

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user, I feel that the settlement is more than 
fair. Consumers world wide have been benefitted by innovation 
created by competition. I firmly believe that Microsoft competitors 
are misusing the court system to gain what they could not attain in 
the market place.
    Edward J. Mueller
    15000 Village Greem Drive # 40
    Mill Creek, Wa 98012



MTC-00007748

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible: the 
proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
    Regards,
    Brad Stephenson
    San Marcos, CA



MTC-00007749

From: morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29am
Subject: Bill is God.
    Microsoft rules! Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    morales
    3024 west 25
    cleveland, oh, 44113
    [email protected]
    Victories are temporary, however failure is forever.



MTC-00007750

From: Bob Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlelment
    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

[[Page 24948]]

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-00007751

From: Gary Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:34am
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 
overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for the industry 
and the American economy. I further believe prolonged litigation 
would only stifle inovation and just benefit a handful of well 
financed competitors. Sincerely,
    Gary A. Sanford
    17708 10th Ave N.E.
    Shoreline, Wa 98155-3706



MTC-00007752

From: Alfred Holzheu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Wake up and smell the coffee. We can buy the most incredible 
engineering marvel of our day (NT) or even Windows for the price of 
a video game. In what possible way has the public ever been harmed. 
This insanity (the whole government case against MS) could only be 
created and promulgated by entirely clueless lawyers, who have no 
conception of what it takes to create an operating systems or what 
life was like prior to MS. I doubt that they are angels, but no 
successful company ever is. The bottom line is what they have done 
to and for the general public and even mankind as a whole. I can't 
imagine any possible scenario that trivializes what MS has 
accomplished into something somehow detrimental to the public, the 
USA or mankind as a whole. Instead of taxing the public (and a tax 
it is, since MS must tack on the price of fighting the case to their 
products and we pay taxes to pay for the num-nuts who are 
prosecuting this case) with this ridiculous lawsuit, we should be 
cheering them on. About the only ``remedy'' that I can even possibly 
see is the requirement for MS to keep an open book regarding the 
various Window API's so that their well-earned and deserved defacto 
monopoly in the operating system area does not preclude others from 
creating useable and robust third party apps. Even this is a bit of 
a fool's errand, as the question as to exactly what an operating 
systems is, is in constant flux. I don't wish to pay lawyers forever 
chasing an accelerating train. There used to be a Hotel under 
construction in my town that we jokingly call the ``Old carpenters 
rest home'' because of the length of time it took to build it. I 
fear this lawsuit will become the same.
    Whenever a lawyer in the government's employ runs out of 
meaningful work to do, they can bill a few hours to the ``Never 
ending case''. Lets give this up, and stop penalizing MS and 
ultimately us by this frivolous lawsuit.
    Sincerely
    Alfred Holzheu
    [email protected]



MTC-00007753

From: Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I would not still be a Microsoft stock holder if I thought they 
were not a good American company . I think, the settlement should 
end as soon as possible.



MTC-00007754

From: Kimberly Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    To whom it may concern:
    Please don't see my address and figure I'm an MS employee, so 
she doesn't count.
    I am proud to be a Microsoft employee. I am a single mom who is 
able to send my child to private school and be involved in her 
school and activities. That's because Microsoft cares about people, 
and especially families and children. Last year, they donated 
hundred's of dollars, probably more than $1,000, worth of software 
to my daughter's school so they could learn on the latest, most 
innovative products. My daughter is 6, so her friends and she 
especially enjoy the Magic School Bus titles. I am very active in my 
community and church and let everyone know I work at Microsoft. As I 
said, I am very proud of that. Microsoft makes such a difference in 
our community, and the business world. We strive everyday to make 
someone's life better. We don't want to hurt others. We want to be 
the best. That's what I teach my daughter, to do the best she can at 
everything she does. What if her friends' parents started telling me 
to tell her to not work so hard, so they could catch up? Would that 
be fair to my daughter? No, and I imagine you would never tell that 
to your children.
    That's what you would be teaching by holding Microsoft back from 
being the best. ``If the competition gets better than you, we'll 
just hold them back until you can catch up''. That's not the ideals 
this country was founded on. ``Be your best'' was told to me 
everyday by my Granny who helped raise me. The anti-trust and anti-
competition laws were developed in times for businesses that had 
great, expensive barriers to entry. Partly due to Microsoft in some 
places, any person with a brain can go to a public library and learn 
to use a computer. Anyone could do what we do. Because we have 
passion for what we do, we do it well. So don't punish or hold us 
back because we have passion and drive. Let us continue to develop 
great software and great people, without having to wait on the 
competition to catch up.
    Thank you,
    Kimberly S. Helms



MTC-00007755

From: charles jenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Having lived through the debacle of the AT&T trial and the IBM 
trial, it seems to me that the case against Microsoft is weak, 
fostered by competing firms whose products were not of equal value 
and whose sales and marketing personnel were weak. In short, the 
competition to Microsoft did not have what it takes to succeed. Were 
it not for Senator Orin Hatch, I doubt that the case would have been 
launched. I discussed the merits of the Microsoft case with an 
attorney employed by a dot com company. I reflected upon the fact 
that each allegation against Microsoft is something I experienced in 
35 years of employment in financial services. His reply was 
``Microsoft got big doing it, therefore the case. If Microsoft had 
not become successful, no case.'' That seems to me to be unequal 
protection or administration of the law.
    The case should be closed promptly.
    Sincerely yours,
    Charles R. Jenner



MTC-00007756

From: DAVID DOLBEE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Enough already--this boondoggle should never have begun, it's 
long past time for it to END. For all the ``sins and crimes'' 
Microsoft has been accused of, not nearly

[[Page 24949]]

enough has been said and credited about their contribution to our 
society, our economy, and the future. If there's free time to 
investigate shady situations, start with ``representatives'' who 
give themselves a raise at midnight! In the context of the September 
11th attack and all it's consequences, while ``normal life and 
activities'' need to continue, we have no time, money or energy to 
continue pouring into this PERsecution ... and had we been putting 
the time, energy, and money into coordinating with Gates/Microsoft 
in our defense, is it possible September 11th might have been 
avoided???



MTC-00007757

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department, Please wrap up the current settlement 
with Microsoft. As a tax payer I request that you stop wasting the 
governments money on this lawsuit against one of this countries best 
companies. Only the attorneys , Microsoft's competitors, and a few 
liberal politicians are profiting from prolonging this suit. Thank 
You. Gordon J Kinzler
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,RFC-822=SenatorFitzg...



MTC-00007758

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Gentlemen, I feel that further litigation in this case is 
uncalled for, and the settlement seems fair to all involved. The 
settlement will certainly help the schools train the students in the 
use of computers. The settlement also puts Microsoft in the position 
of giving many of their innovations to the use of their competitors, 
which may tend to stifle further innovations. Also the cost of 
further litigation will be a burden on the taxpayers and Microsoft. 
I further feel that Judge Penfield Jackson had his mind set against 
Microsoft from the beginning of the trial, and there should have 
been an unbiased Judge appointed to take over the case.
    I am Clarence J. Muth, 125 N.55th Street, Mesa, AZ. 85205.



MTC-00007759

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    To The Dept. of Justice.
    I personally think that the settlement between The U.S. Govt. 
and Microsoft should go forward because it seems like a fair 
agreement. The rights of the software company to protect its 
intellectual property, and the protection from monopolies for 
consumers seems to be balanced. To break up the company would not be 
in the best interest of either parties.
    Thank You
    John R. Lowrance
    8855 Whispering Oaks
    Redding Calif. 96002



MTC-00007760

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is the first time in 60 years as a citizen I have written 
to the government about an issue. I feel strongly enough about this 
one to write. Please settle the above case and stop trying to split 
this company up. You should have better issues to address than to 
ruin American Private companies. No wonder they go to foreign lands 
to do their business. The courts are the ruin of almost everything.
    Roger Baird
    Portland, Or.



MTC-00007761

From: SANEE TABASSI
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello:
    I would like to express my opinion on the Microsoft settlement. 
First of all I think suing a comp that brought so much money and has 
created so many jobs for this country is totally out of line. You 
can not single hand out Microsoft for being the best in what they 
do, there are so many comp in this country that have monopoly (Las 
Vegas area could be a great example, casinos, convenient stores, 
shopping centers, all owned by one persons or one corporation). I 
believe Microsoft offer is great and the government should except 
that, and let them move forward in this really bad and unstable 
economy. Thank you so much for your time.



MTC-00007762

From: GLARP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Retiring Persons 
Inc. devoted to creating senior housing that is gay and lesbian 
(LGBT) friendly. As an individual I wholeheartedly endorse the 
Microsoft Settlement--we need to get on and build America, not waste 
time with more litigation. It is crucial that this settlement be 
endorsed and passed.
    Veronica St.Claire, 310-478-2245, Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00007763

From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: MICROSOFT 01-03-2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONG--I'M SICK OF YOUR CONTINUAL HARRASSMENT OF 
THIS FINE COMPANY--SCOTT MCNEALY MAKES ME SICK ALSO. END THIS 
ENDLESS PURSUIT TO DESTROY WHAT AMERICA MEANS--FREEDOM TO INNOVATE-
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE,
    MARY-JOHNE HICKMAN



MTC-00007764

From: Ragnar de Sharengrad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Settlement
    First, I don't own Microsoft stock and don't work at Microsoft 
or any other company for that matter, so I don't speak from a 
selfish motif. I find the US obsession with anti trust insane and is 
again going too far, all under the disguise of ``what is best for 
the consumer''. I remember the Government going after IBM in the ' 
70s and vaguely remember a decade long fight. What were the big 
benefits to the consumer? It is easier to understand regulation of 
utilities as their products can be considered necessities in a 
modern society. Who is forced to use computers in first place and 
who is forced to choose Microsoft operating systems? Why don't they 
use UNIX or Linux or whatever is available instead? Why not use 
IBM's OS/2? If they can't compete whose fault is it?
    To me it smacks of socialism the way the State Governors and the 
Clinton Government go after Microsoft. They should be happy that 
Microsoft doesn't pull up stakes and move to another country. My 
native country is Sweden, where socialistic labor laws went hand in 
hand with general jealousy and equal income through repressive 
taxation (and still do). The net result has been that many good 
companies have either been driven to bankruptcy or have moved 
abroad.
    I think Microsoft's and the Bush Government's proposed 
settlement should be accepted and the company then shielded from new 
ridiculous law suits.
    Ragnar de Sharengrad
    18325 129th Ave NE
    Bothell, WA 98011
    Phone: 425-483-0862
    [email protected]



MTC-00007765

From: Jim Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hasn't this gone on long enough?
    Wouldn't it be in the best interest to get this behind us. I 
think that it would be a boost in the stock market and the economy 
to have this settled.
    Settle Now for the best of all of us.
    Sincerely,
    James Olson



MTC-00007766

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please bring this suit to a conclusion and let competition 
settle the score. I am pro Microsoft because I'm tired of buying 
products that aren't compatible, poorly configured, expensive and 
from companies attempting to be just as aggressive as MSFT has been 
accused of being but with a poor product line.
    This lawsuit is stiffling the software industry, hurting me as a 
consumer as few companies are developing and innovating compatible 
products until a settlement is reached.
    I made a choice in operating systems by rejecting Apple's 
offerings, Linux' offerings and I still use programs that aren't 
compatible with current MSFT programs because they work better for 
me! BUT,

[[Page 24950]]

Microsoft produces a product that evolves, improves and is 
affordable when it does change.
    When other companies get their act together and make something 
better...guess who'll be curious enough to check it out...me again.
    PLEASE, GOVERNMENT, LET ME MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS...IT'S MY MONEY 
AND I HAVE SPENT IT...AS HAVE OTHERS ON A BETTER PRODUCT AND 
MICROSOFT HAPPENS TO BE THE BENEFICIARY...ISN'T THAT WHAT IT'S 
SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT?
    Sincerely,
    Staton Lorenz
    President
    Half Mile Cycle Race Corp



MTC-00007767

From: Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Selllement
    Sirs:
    I feel that this judgement or whatever has cost the tax payers 
enough and should be settled quickly.I believe that Microsoft has 
bowed over trying to settle this law suit for the benefit to the 
electronic industry and to the economy of our country.



MTC-00007768

From: ROB FLORY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept this settlement. It is good for the consumer, and
    OUR COUNTRY!!!



MTC-00007769

From: WILLIAM KLINE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56am
Subject: Settlement
    Let's stop punishng Microsoft and get this thing overwith. Think 
of all the good things Microsoft could do in the way of research to 
benefit all of us if they weren't having to spend all these millions 
of dollars fighting a few disgruntled businesses who are afraid of 
competition, which is after all the American way of capitalism.
    Sincerely, William A. Kline
    [email protected] or [email protected]



MTC-00007770

From: ROD HALES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We are sick and tired of the crybabies who want the last pound 
of flesh from Microsoft.....the feds settled their case and so did 
several states...tell the last few states fall in line and lets get 
it done once and for all... over and out.. Thank you... Rod and 
Barbara Hales.. Sherwood, Oregon 97140



MTC-00007771

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those in power:
    The entire system of ``Antitrust'' law is an abomination, and 
should be repealed and eliminated forever. ``Antitrust'' amounts to 
nothing more than punishing production because it is production. If 
you want a detailed argument for this position, read Chairman Alan 
Greenspan's article, ``Antitrust'', in the book, --Capitalism: The 
Unknown Ideal--. (Rand, Ayn, editor. New York: The New American 
Library, Inc., 1967, p. 63-71.)
    Because ``Antitrust'' is in principle a moral and economic 
equivalent of poison, we should have as little of it as possible. 
Microsoft has done nothing wrong, and is a paragon of production. So 
be as lenient on Bill Gates and his associates as you have the 
courage and integrity to be. If you have a choice between punishing 
Microsoft and losing your job, think of another line of work. It 
will be better for the world, for America, and for your own souls.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Steinhart, M.A.
    8699 Kenberton Dr.
    Oak Park, MI, 48237-1732
    (248) 544-7245 home (248) 435-5353 work



MTC-00007772

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
    Sirs:
    It is my belief that prolonging litigation is not in the ``best 
interest'' of our economy or concerned citizens. I will concur the 
agreement you reached tentatively is in the ``best interest'' of all 
consumers...so stop procrastinating and allowing these special 
interest groups to intervene. Get the show on the road and settle 
this case! This is absolutely ridiculous and very costly to everyone 
by allowing such utter nonsense to continue this long. Please allow 
Microsoft the freedom to innovate! Thank you for your time and 
consideration in allowing me the opportunity to voice my opinion 
regarding this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Frances Leonardini



MTC-00007773

From: Jan Rhees
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:59am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    From all indications, this appears to be a fair, and adequate 
settlement, and I encourage you to validate the settlement decision 
and move on. Let this be the end of it.
    Thank you,
    Jan Rhees



MTC-00007774

From: Bob Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks,
    I've watched the onslaught against Microsoft for ``years'' now. 
Remember when Microsoft ``bundled'' Internet Explorer with 
windows??? At this same time Netscape was SELLING its Navigator 
Navigator for $50.00 to every individual who wanted to surf the 
internet. Now AOL (owns Netscape) YES, gives away FREE Netscape 
Navigator to anyone who wants to download it to their computer!!!!!! 
Has the U.S. Government ever figured out how many million $50.00 
bills have been saved by ALL computer users. Yes, Microsoft inovated 
and forced COMPETITION and AOL was forced to give away the $50.00 
Netscape Navigator for free. Hasn't the American consumer saved 
BILLIONS of American dollars as a result.
    If the American consumer has suffered as some have suggested 
please tell me how much money I would have saved if both Microsoft 
and AOL charged me $50.00 for each new version of Netscape Navigator 
or Internet Explorer??????!
    Let competition FORCE down prices and let a company like 
Microsoft (Large enough to compete internationally) bring revenues 
to the United States from around the world. Our deficit is already 
to large and Microsoft has NOT added ONE CENT to the United States 
excessive deficit spending! Why not show the American consumer how 
much money Microsoft cost them or saved them! Most people are not 
stupid and what ever you do REMEMBER politicians and government 
officials WILL be remembered at the polls...
    From Just ONE concerned citizen
    Robert H. Powers



MTC-00007775

From: kerryduwaldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:02am
Subject: In Favor of settlement in the Microsoft case
    Speaking as both a shareholder of Microsoft and as a long time 
user of many of their products, I am strongly in favor of a swift 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. I feel that competitors 
of this great company have brought this suit against Microsoft just 
because they have not been able to produce products that are as good 
as Microsoft's products. These disgruntled companies have been 
wasting their energy on trying to break up Microsoft when they 
should have been trying to improve their products in an effort to 
compete with Microsoft. I think it is very sad that so much time and 
money has been wasted in this no win case. This anti-trust suit is 
bad for consumers. Microsoft should be spending their time producing 
better and better products for us, the consumers and not spending 
their time in court because of a few mediocre companies.



MTC-00007776

From: Tim Sedlack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm very disappointed to see special intrest groups (read: 
Microsoft's chief competitors) having such influence on the court. I 
feel it's wrong to stifle competition, even for the industry leader. 
Microsoft is in the position it's in because it provides (usually) 
reasonably priced highly functional software that adheres to most 
standards. I critically evaluate software for purchase and choose 
based on price/functionality. Microsoft is a consistant winner, but 
not the only one. Why

[[Page 24951]]

are you letting thier competitors sway you? Can we expect to see the 
same rules applied to AOL--the largest software/service company in 
the world? Where are the lawsuits against them? After having 
recieved seeming thousands of offers ``Free hours'' on AOL, I can 
say that they are more of a thorn in my side than Microsoft.
    Tim Sedlack
    [email protected]



MTC-00007777

From: G. S. Rana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the MS settlement reached by DOJ. The 3 member 
overseeing board makes the settlement tough, and frankly much more 
than I would have expected MS to face.
    Thanks



MTC-00007778

From: coinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel this has gone on long enough. I say let the settlement 
stand as it is now. Get it over with and lets move on.
    Ray Harcourt Jr.
    669 Stable Gate Ln
    Florence, Ky. 41042



MTC-00007779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I believe that enough is enough. The Microsoft case has drug on 
for years now and it is time to settle it and be done with it. The 
settlement is fair to all sides. Lets not waste more money and time 
litigating this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Nicholoff
    Edmonds, WA.



MTC-00007780

From: Ricky Loynd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly in favor of this settlement. It is more than 
sufficient to redress the affects of any of Microsoft's alleged 
anticompetitive behavior.
    Ricky Loynd



MTC-00007781

From: Karl Van Blankenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please go forward with the settlement in the case with 
Microsoft. It would be beneficial for the public/consumers and be 
best for allowing the justice system to focus on other matters of 
more pressing nature.
    Best Regards,
    Karl Van Blankenburg



MTC-00007782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Microsoft:
    It is time to end this litigation that in my estimation does not 
benefit the consumers and helps mostly attorneys. God knows the US 
has more of them than most countries, a dubious honor in my 
estimation.
    Prolonging this suit can only help line the pockets of 
litiginous lawyers, ultimately at the cost of consumers who 
suposedly should be the beneficiaries!
    Hang in there!
    Alberto C Serrano, MD



MTC-00007783

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
The federal government and nine states have 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. The end.
    Jerry Harris
    5059 Newmans-Cardington Road East
    Cardington, Ohio 43315-9609



MTC-00007784

From: Donald Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is in the best interest of the public. 
Microsoft should be allowed to continue their creative strategy and 
continue to produce effecetive products which gives pleasure to the 
public and empowers the average citizen to produce work efficiently.
    Respectfully submitted.
    Donald H. Foster
    [email protected]



MTC-00007785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This suit was suspect to begin with, so lets get on with the 
business of developing better products and let the market place 
decide which is the best.
    C. H. Schmoll



MTC-00007786

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this to voice my opinion. Please settlement the 
litigation as soon as possible. I believe that the Microsoft 
Corporation has offered a just settlement, we need the 
responsibility of our court system to take charge and dismiss any 
other suits by small interest groups as the majority have voiced its 
opinion for the good of the majority. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John Anthony Rim



MTC-00007787

From: Jim Beebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear DOJ,
    I just want to say that I think the work of Microsoft has been 
of great benefit to the economy of this country and they should not 
be penalized for making products that do well in the marketplace. If 
they had not continued to innovate and improve their products this 
computer would not be half as easy to use. I am starting to use 
their new operating system XP and it is a huge improvement. Imagine 
if all we had was the old DOS system. I am not and never have been 
an employee of MS, just a satisfied customer that wants to see them 
continue to do what they do so well.
    Sincerely,
    James L. Beebe
    P.O. Box 65472
    Port Ludlow, WA 98365



MTC-00007788

From: Needham, James P
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  12:49am
Subject: Time to Move On
    As a observer of the Microsoft anti-trust litigation, I must 
tell you that as a consumer, I have never been harmed by Microsoft. 
The continuous actions of a few State AGs seems to be more about 
them getting good press to push their own personal political agenda 
that to look out for consumers. Our Country is in a recession, we 
need companies like Microsoft to innovate so we can increase 
productivity and the value of American products. I am certainly not 
an expert but it would seem to me that the current anti-trust laws 
were enacted to address the smoke stack industries in a non-global 
marketplace. What seems obvious to the average person on the stress 
apparent escapes the politicians and the high priced political 
appointees. If the Netscape's of the world cannot compete let them 
get the hell out of the way. It seems that the government and the 
some of the states want to decrease competition and innovation by 
restricting Microsoft. How stupid.
    CC: Dennis Hastert (E-mail), Don Nichols (E-mail), Georg...



MTC-00007789

From: gtech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone and worry about your own problems, 
which there are many.
    Craig



MTC-00007790

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to voice my APPROVAL for the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. I believe it is good for consumers, good for the 
competition and good for our economy.

[[Page 24952]]

Further delays or additional litigation will damage both the 
technology industry and our free enterprise system.
    Sincerely,
    John Hankerson
    2641 262nd Place SE
    Sammamish, WA 98075



MTC-00007791

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT became a ``monopoly'' by offering consumers a product 
that simply beat the pants off their competition(IBM, Apple, Sun , 
Linux to name a few) To this day none of these companies have ever 
developed a mass market operating software system to come close to 
MSFT. Microsoft then proceeded to improve its basic operating system 
to make it easier for the msft customer to access the internet and 
have the added capability of having the browser interact with its OP 
systems in a simple, easy manner to learn and operate. So far the 
consumer is not complaining, not about the bundling, not about the 
price, not about the fact that computer hardware mfrs and retailers 
have all this great stuff preloaded on their machines so all the 
consumer has to do is plug in the computer, follow a few simple 
instructions and they are off to do a lot of very productive, or non 
productive work, as they can choose to do! If you read the latest 
numbers, the number of people ordering merchandise of all sorts on 
the internet has been booming, recession or no recession. So far 
MSFT has offered a superior product, offers it at reasonable price, 
and has made it possible for people of all ages to learn to use the 
internet to satisfy new workplace requirements and support new 
internet businesses. So what's wrong with this picture? Consumers 
are not injured in any way. They are free to buy Apple computers, if 
they like, they can buy a machine and have linux loaded as the 
operating system, if they like, or java ,or unix or IBM's O/S, if 
they like, except that they don't!! MSFT doesnt make the computers, 
or any components, all they do is supply software that is designed 
to function as easily and smoothly as possible with the latest bells 
and whistles that the hardware makes possible. Their complaining 
competitors, some of which are much larger than MSFT, are free to do 
better, but they have'nt. Have you seen any new browser products 
being offered by these crybaby's to compete with Explorer...??? The 
MSFT software, a miniscule and continually declining % of the price 
of the newest computers, whose prices keep going south even as the 
capabilities of the machines are ten fold from a few years ago!
    Having done all this, no harm except to non competitive 
competitors, seems evident to me and that is no different from the 
situation in any number of other industries.
    Go to any department store and you will see the same brands 
featured in every major store. Why is that not being investigated? 
Tobacco companies offer discounts to gain shelf space, so do 
companies like P&G, How about those sales of coca cola and pepsi 
that never occur at the same time. One week Pepsi, next week Coke. 
Hello, does this look like normal competition? You don't see gas 
stations alternating promotions with the guy across the street, they 
match prices a dozen times a day!!
    MSFT has not done anything any other company would not do to 
grow and survive competitive challenges. Are they hardnose? Yes! So 
what's new? I recall Netscape execss claiming they were going to 
develop a browser that would ``surround'' the MSFT operating system 
and make it subservient to the Netscape browser?? Sun has been 
screaming JAVA for years, but where's the Sun Java O/S to go head to 
head with MSFT? Same with Linux, where's the beef? So, let MSFT get 
on with what it does best...software that keeps adding ,improving 
without wasting our taxes chasing a great company that leads not 
only the US, but any company in the world in it's field!!! Are we 
upset we have one standard VCR format? Arent we trying to 
standardize digital?, broadband, telecom systems to broaden 
efficient use and make it easier for consumers? MSFT has done that 
with out any GOvt help. Tell the states to look for some other patsy 
to try and extort money from and leave MSFT alone. Do no harm to 
consumers is the litmus test for anti trust,,,there is none here. 
You want to protect choice? Consumers have already chosen ...with 
their pocket books...let it go!!
    Thank you...a citizen who thinks the DOJ has better things to do 
with our taxes!!!
    Robert Conti



MTC-00007792

From: LYN GILMER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that the Microsoft Operating System provides a very 
large value to computer consumers. I have been using PC's since they 
appeared and ``microcomputers'' prior to that. Software was very 
expensive back then . Feature for feature, today's software is a 
real bargain. Consumers have not been harmed by Microsoft, instead 
have benefited from the many useful products given as part of the 
package. Also, remember the thousands of developers who can write 
software for a Microsoft Operating System knowing that tens of 
millions of people are their potential customers. They could not 
afford to develop code for many OS's only one. If they have a good 
product they will make money and pay taxes. I am a great fan of the 
Microsoft brand. They are an example of how great a company can grow 
in our free enterprise system.
    Thanks!
    Tom Gilmer



MTC-00007793

From: mstat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I just want to go on record as opposing this golddigging 
settlement attempt to fleece microsoft. I sit here at my Compaq 
computer with Windows XP, using my Microsoft Internet Explorer to 
access this website and type this response. To me, Microsoft is part 
of AmericTa...a great part. They are family to me. I am upset at the 
effort to discard competition, innovation, and the assumption of 
entreprenureal risk in my country, all for the unscrupulous receipt 
of ill-gotten monetary gains. LEAVE THEM ALONE! Microsoft is as 
American as apple pie and a great success story. They have 
(partially) shaped the way I live and communicate. This shameless 
attempt to extort money is dispicable.
    Sincerely,
    mstat
    Mark D. Statler MD



MTC-00007794

From: Sharon Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair as it stands now. This has been 
going on long enough. End it and lets all get back to business.
    Sincerely, Sharon Wood



MTC-00007795

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here is my opinion: the DOJ should discontinue wasting the 
government's(my taxes)monies on prosecuting or mediating a 
settlement. I, as a consumer of computer products, never felt harmed 
by Microsoft. The nine states not settling are fishing for money and 
the courts should dismiss any actions filed by them. I think the DOJ 
should be held in contempt for ``restraint of trade''. One man's 
opinion....
    Marty Kulina
    206. 972.9704



MTC-00007796

From: Bruce (038) Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Enough is Enough... Settle the case!!... It is an embarrassment 
to the rest of the free world to continue to allow states whose 
interest/allegence/financial backing is with competitor companies 
like SUN, Oracle, etc--drag this court battle on further....
    My wife and I are software engineers and we both feel that 
Microsoft software is the most user-friendly and supportable product 
line available... Unfortunately, companies like SUN didn't take the 
time/energy/funding to make the UNIX operating system easy to use 
for the common user... It is their own problem that they didn't have 
superior enough products to compete with Microsoft's products... 
Microsoft did not force people to use their products... People use 
them because they are good, easy to use, readily available, etc... 
And Microsoft products (operating system, applications, etc) are 
fairly priced...
    It is unfortunate we have to hear from whiney company executives 
from SUN, Oracle, etc--keep droning on and on and on about 
Microsoft's unfair business practises... We need to put an end to 
this sorry part of US high-tech history, and let companies like 
Microsoft get on with their business...
    regards,
    Bruce and Leslie Pleshko

[[Page 24953]]

    Aiea, Hawaii
    808-484-5077



MTC-00007797

From: Joe Masters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I support this settlement. Let's move on.
    Joe Masters
    434 Floral Way
    Rohnert Park, CA 94928
    [email protected]



MTC-00007798

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    a quick settlement is the best for the consumer, industry , 
Microsoft and Microsoft competitors. If Microsoft competitors had 
spent half of the money and other resources (which they are spending 
to drag the case against Microsoft) to develope a new product, they 
would have possibly come up with a product to compete with 
Microsoft. please understand the situation and close the cae ASAP.
    Ali Hatami



MTC-00007799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a travesty. There is nothing here to prevent 
Microsoft's continued use of its monopoly position to destroy any 
software innovation they do not own. Microsoft must be deprived of 
the means to maintain that monopoly. A number of possible means to 
that end are possible, inlcuding: publishing all their source code; 
or making all their operating system interfaces and protocols public 
on the same basis that internet protocols are made public, i.e., 
with complete documentation and reference implementations made 
freely available, for any lawful use whatsoever, including, but not 
limited to, the construction of a competing operating system. A 
company that truly benefits the public with their systems will 
thrive in such a competitive environment, just as Cisco Systems 
does. Microsoft's egregious and perpetual contempt for the public 
welfare leaves them no claim to anything other than a competitive 
environment, if indeed they deserve to continue to exist as a public 
company.
    Stephen P. Schaefer
    Computer Systems Administrator
    Masters of Science in Computer Science, UNC--Chapel Hill 1993



MTC-00007800

From: William HAYES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58am
Subject: I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their 
software. The only people I know that are
    I have voted time and again for Microsoft by buying their 
software. The only people I know that are objecting to the way 
Microsoft does business is people who want to pirate their software 
from me and the ones that think that they should be allowed open 
access to hack into it easier. As a result of the foresight and 
vision brought by Microsoft,the price of home computers has come 
down to the point that every household can afford them and every 
child can learn to program them and use them if they have the 
ability and want to use them. Many advancement have been recognized 
and supported by Microsoft by developing software to support it.
    Microsoft is a major source of the balance of payments with 
other countries. Microsoft has given the US the a technological lead 
that should help keep the US on sound financial footing, but that 
financial lead could be overturned by an AT&T type of mistake that 
will only lead to higher costs and unsettling lack of leadership in 
home computers.
    William C. Hayes



MTC-00007801

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice January 2, 2002
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I have the opinion that the Microsoft people were, and are, 
innocent anent the manufacture and propagation of their software-
items which are, by very definition, not harmful.
    Sincerely from Geoffrey Doman
    13900 Cohasset Street
    Van Nuys, CA
    91405-2501



MTC-00007802

From: Philip R. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe the Tunney Act should be adopted for the parties 
involved. I think that given the circumstances, it is fair and 
equitable to both sides. It is more important than ever, for the 
litigation to stop and the productivity to move forward. Competition 
is good for everyone involved. Microsoft began as a startup company 
and had to endure all kinds of competition to get it where it is 
today. They provided a need for a product and consumers voted with 
their pocketbooks. They did not try to legally ``remove'' or render 
helpless their then competitors.
    Please move forward with this issue.
    Kindly,
    Philip Palumbo
    [email protected]



MTC-00007803

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    After a tough recession, with many people out of work, it is 
HIGH TIME to get this country moving again ! Expedite the fair 
settlement of the Microsoft case !
    Pilot [email protected] (Gunter Gigas)



MTC-00007804

From: Steve (038) Robin Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  8:33pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It's definitely time to settle the Microsoft case. I felt that 
the suit was frivolous to begin with and the fact that it has 
dragged on for so long trying to cripple a company that has done so 
much just completely angers me. I think the message this suit sends 
is 'that if you are great at what you do and make a product better 
than your competitor then we are going to make you pay.' I really 
hope everyone involved can settle this case and move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Robin L. Lee



MTC-00007805

From: bcathcart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Give it a rest already. Stop the litigation. Without Microsoft 
all of those pencil neck attorneys would still be writing their 
briefs on a legal pad.
    Bill Cathcart



MTC-00007806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do America a favor-settle this case by terminating DOJ action 
against Microsoft! This litigation has destroyed huge valuations in 
the tech stock market, financially injuring lots of 
shareholders(direct and in mutual funds) and pension funds. It may 
also be responsible for terminating the great bull market and 
causing the start of the economic downturn, thanks to Billy Clinton 
and his juvenile delinquent administration.
    No, I'm not a Microsoft employee or direct stockholder. I am a 
user of their products. Are they the best? Probably not. Are they 
the PC standard? Don't you know it!
    Bill Drake
    Bothell, WA



MTC-00007807

From: Fred B. McCarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft established the de facto standards for the software 
industry that caused the phenomenal growth and success that astounds 
the world and enriches our country. Microsoft is the goose that lays 
golden eggs. LET MICROSOFT ALONE! Microsoft continually strives to 
improve the quality and value of its products. The people who 
complain about Microsoft's leadership are whiners who seek to rely 
on politics and lawyers instead of technical excellence and fair 
prices. Most of the businesses that now oppose Microsoft would never 
have achieved their present status and success without the 
standardization established by Microsoft and its unrelenting 
pressure to improve software and explore new technology.

[[Page 24954]]

    When our government tries to cripple a successful business, to 
punish technical innovation, to create chaos where there is order, 
to stifle legitimate competition, it is the beginning of the end of 
our prosperity! Don't meddle with a miracle! Go and sin no more!
    Fred B. McCarty, P.E.



MTC-00007808

From: Chris Blount
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe it is time to finish the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft. I believe the proposed settlement as accepted by 
Microsoft is fair and should thus terminate this matter once and for 
all.
    I have yet to find even one person in Alaska who can honestly 
say he or she has been harmed by Microsoft; to the contrary 
Microsoft technologies have been extremely advantageous for bush 
Alaska.
    D.O.J. should not let itself be degraded and used by inferior 
competitors or manipulated by Congressmen from competitor's 
districts and states to fight in the market place.
    Please accept the settlement now and end this matter for good.
    Sincerely yours,
    Chris T. Blount
    PO Box 503
    Nome, AK 99762



MTC-00007809

From: Steve Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 their planned demise of 
Microsoft's commercial viability, which are as meaningless as the 
civil action allegations. In the civil action complaints, the 
authors excel at presenting misleading information.
    2. There is a near-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 the 
compatibility issues of networking multiple PC operating systems. As 
it is, having to maintain separate server and desktop PC operating 
systems is more than enough headache and there are strong financial 
forces to compel the integration 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 networked hard drives. Every computer should be 
able to connect to these shared drives. 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 sizeable 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. Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer was offered to consumers who wanted to update 
their browsing capability, but did not want to update their 
operating system; otherwise there is no reason to make it a separate 
program since it is conceptually integral to an operating system and 
control of the directly attached and networked computer hardware.
    4. Alternative operating systems have done poorly in the 
marketplace for reasons of commonality, cost of training and lack of 
return of investment for businesses. Consumers are an integral part 
of companies and gain most of their computer knowledge on the job 
and therefore share the same beliefs which they pass on to their 
lesser experienced friends. The Apple monopoly could have been 
wildly successful, except they chose to maintain high prices and 
monopolize their hardware designs. The only high business 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 
nonsense. This is as absurd as saying that no new products of any 
kind can be invented because everything has already been invented. 
There are no barriers to marketing any other software products as 
thousands of large and small companies have done, provided they have 
a viable marketing concept and consumers consider the product to 
have value.
    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 misuse of 
marketing propaganda, proves nothing, and has no basis in fact. Do 
you believe everything you hear in commercial TV advertisements?
    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 success of JAVA is only dependent on its authors 
making it a safe and viable product. JAVA's technical competence and 
business acumen are 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 email, 
numerous web sites offer to install JAVA on Internet users computers 
on a daily basis. Linux, Unix, Beos and several other operating 
systems are available, but do not provide the features and benefits 
of Windows and will not even be considered by businesses for desktop 
computers for these reasons.
    7. This civil 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 in thousands 
of industries due to Microsoft innovation is the real benefit of a 
free market. This is why Sun is losing billions due to the demise of 
their hardware empire and why they are in such a panic to get 
revenge by destroying Microsoft. They are misusing the legal system 
to compensate for their business failings. I am not now, nor have I 
ever been a Microsoft employee or employed by any organization 
working for Microsoft. I am a mechanical engineer, consumer and 
computer hobbyist. For a few years, I did struggled with the issues 
of providing computer services to fellow engineers and I learned to 
dislike a number of large, arrogant, 3-letter-named computer/
software companies. Their adversarial attitudes and ludicrous prices 
will remain etched in the minds of an entire generation that today 
prepare the budgets in many corporations.
    Steven Black
    1916 Camas Court SE
    Renton, WA 98055



MTC-00007810

From: Don Holtzinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice.
    I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find 
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes 
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards 
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth. 
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special 
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their 
names in the public spotlight.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Don Holtzinger
    17605 NE 101st Court
    Redmond, WA 98052



MTC-00007811

From: RGA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department--
    The settlement that you have negotiated with Microsoft is in the 
best interest of all

[[Page 24955]]

involved. I urge you to fulfill your promises in that settlement and 
defend it in Court, in Congress, and in the press.
    It is obvious that the critics are either competitors who cannot 
compete in the market without outside assistance, or people like 
Sen. Hatch whose influential constituents are apparently those same 
competitors.
    This is no place for the tainted political process to interfere 
with entrepreneurial success and risk-taking.
    Gordon Appleman



MTC-00007812

From: Don Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice:
    I'm very proud of the way you and Microsoft have worked to find 
a solution to the Anti-Trust case, and I think the solution promotes 
competition while letting the industry move forward with standards 
that will ensure another 20 years of continued technology growth. 
This settlement is tough, but I believe it's reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    Please don't let this lawsuit get sidetracked by special 
interest groups or Attorney's Generals who are trying to keep their 
names in the public spotlight.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Donnie Barren



MTC-00007813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I think the entire persecution of Microsoft was unnecessary, 
uncalled for and a waste of tax payers money. The settlement is 
another form of government extortion. I do not feel one bit safer, 
one bit freer, one bit more capable of making purchasing decisions 
with the Federal government having filed this suit and all the 
attendant cost to us via taxes and the revenue lost to the 
government with Microsoft being able to deduct their legal expenses.
    Do not waste another minute of time or expense on this issue. 
This entire issue was a display of blatant class envy. The foremost 
users of class envy where the communists. Are their any correlations 
here?
    Allow Microsoft the ability to do charitable works with school 
systems they select.
    Thank You,
    HJH



MTC-00007814

From: Theresa Hancock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would like to voice my opinion that the Microsoft case be 
settled without further litigation. I think further litigation is 
not in the best interest of the consumer, economy, or the industry. 
As a consumer, I do not feel damaged by Microsoft, but quite the 
opposite, and think that further litigation is only politically 
motivated and costly to the American taxpayer and economy.
    Thank you,
    Theresa Hancock
    103 Patrick Ct.
    Sunnyside, WA 98944
    509-837-8550



MTC-00007815

From: Ken (038) Michelle Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete the settlement on the Microsoft case. Please 
include my voice with those wanting you to accept the proposed 
settlement.
    Thank you
    Ken Walters
    4506 226th ST SW
    Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043



MTC-00007816

From: Brenda Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:41am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement. Our state and our 
country need to put this to rest and Microsoft has done everything 
to come to a fair agreement.
    Thank you,
    Brenda Wagner
    4245 230th Way SE
    Sammamish WA 98075



MTC-00007817

From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I hope that the settlement reached between Microsoft, the 
federal government and several states will be allowed to stand. Lets 
end this thing in one more effort to get the economy moving again! I 
am 77 years of age and do not remember a circumstance before where a 
few competitors of a company, along with a few quisle-like 
congressional representatives, have been able to derail our system 
of competition with so little basis. Please do whatever you can to 
ensure that deserving contributors get their due, and that those who 
want to compete by deriding the deserving get exactly what I feel 
they have earned. Nothing.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Thome, Bellevue, Washington



MTC-00007818

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge:
    I feel Microsoft have done too much to settle this antitrust 
case. Their products are so good and easy to use. I think it is time 
to let the company continue to do their business.
    Microsoft consumer
    1-3-02



MTC-00007819

From: Daniel Wahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Department of Justice ought to be morally condemned 
for even charging Microsoft with the alleged crime of coercing its 
very satisfied customers (of which I am one out of many). I am 
writing this using my hotmail account, a free service given to 
everyone by Microsoft. I am on the internet via Explorer, thanks to 
Microsoft. Hell, I can even navigate myself around on the computer 
thanks to this company. Because of this (and more) are you actually 
asking me whether I think the punishment for Microsoft is too soft? 
Hell no it's not too soft! They shouldn't be punished at all. And, 
despite mumbling that the company's prosecution was a ``victory for 
consumers everywhere'' Janet Reno knew this. So does Ashcroft.
    What they both know, but fail to admit, is that Microsoft has 
gained its market dominance, not by using fraud or force, but by 
consistenly offering better (more popular) services and products for 
a cheaper price than their competitors. Is it for their achievements 
that this company has been damned? If the new Department of --
Justice-- wants to prove it has a right to actually bear that name, 
it should ``ettle'' with Microsoft by first apologizing, then paying 
restitution for any money that the firm has lost as a result of this 
immoral trial.
    --Daniel Wahl, Kannapolis, NC



MTC-00007820

From: Elizabeth R. Baecher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:47am
Subject: Settlement
    Had government applied the same zeal regarding US security as 
they had harassing Microsoft, New York City undoubtedly would still 
have its skyline intact and thousands of lives would not have been 
uselessly lost.
    Please feel free to pass these comments on.
    Elizabeth R. Baecher
    Mount Kisco, New York



MTC-00007821

From: John Grubb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The best thing that can happen for the whole country and the 
economy is to settle the case against Microsoft. The technology 
industry moves so quickly that the government should be more 
concerned about companies like AOL, than Microsoft. AOL is a perfect 
example of a company positioned to take control of the digital media 
business from end to end. Focus on the future, not the past! Many 
say it is a coincidence that the stock market dived sharply when it 
was announced the first time that negotiations between Microsoft and 
the plaintiffs had been broken off. I however think there was a 
direct correlation, and the longer this thing drags on, the worse it 
is for everyone.
    The states that are not part of the current settlement happen to 
have major Microsoft competitors headquartered in their states, what 
a coincidence. These companies need to innovate and stop litigating. 
I find it hard to understand why everyone is up in arms

[[Page 24956]]

over Microsoft, when government backed monopolies like Airbus 
Industries in Europe exist to compete unfairly against Boeing. The 
US is not able to trade freely with many other nations on this 
planet, yet we waste our time attacking our own companies. I can 
only imagine how many countries would love to have a Microsoft. Yet, 
instead of enjoying such a successful company, our country seeks to 
destroy it. What a huge waste of resources.
    Yes, my tax dollars and many other hard working American's tax 
dollars. Where does it stop? Please do not forget that Microsoft 
commoditized the personal computer industry. If we had three or four 
major PC OS vendors, then software would cost more, and do less. 
Having a common standard to write to is very good for the consumer. 
What if we had four different standards for electricity. A company 
who makes blenders would have to make four flavors to accommodate 
the different standards. Of course they would have to pass the cost 
of the extra tools to make the four flavors along to the consumer.
    As for integrating into the OS useful tools and utilities like a 
browser or media player, I think it is good. Even though Netscape 
has failed to technically innovate in a long time, Microsoft's 
browser gets better and better even though it does not have to. When 
I bought my first PC I spent hundreds of dollars on utilities, that 
often did not work well with my DOS OS. When I called for support I 
was told it was an OS problem, call IBM. I would rather integrate 
than have to spend more money to buy the extras I need from a third 
party.
    Some food for thought, a good spreadsheet, word processor and 
graphics package in the mid-1980's cost about $500 each, for a grand 
total of $1,500. None of them worked together and the menu systems 
were different on each. Sharing data between them was far from easy. 
Today you can buy the same three packages from Microsoft for about 
$500 for all three, and they work very well together. Sounds pretty 
good to me.
    As a market leader, Microsoft does not have to innovate at the 
rate it does. That is what happened to so many other software 
vendors--they viewed success as a destination. Microsoft views 
success as a journey, one that they are always shooting for.
    In closing I will admit Microsoft is no saint. They are a fierce 
competitor. Yet I believe an America with Microsoft is better than 
one without. If we are not careful the next Microsoft may end up 
being in a foreign country where we do not benefit nearly as much as 
having it in out own backyard.
    Please get this issue behind us and move on. . .
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    John Grubb
    8116 Pecan Ridge Drive
    North Richland Hills, TX 76180



MTC-00007822

From: Susan Griffin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:55am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Regarding legal settlement Microsoft/DOJ
    I believe that the lawsuit was very unecessary, considering 
other very large companies who have of late become conglomerates. 
Time Warner to name a high profile situation. Then we have the oil 
companies, and the supermarkets and the pharmaceutical companies, 
etc. There are others as well. I feel this was a rather selective 
law suit and I certainly feel Microsoft has been reasonable and 
responsive enough. For heavens sake settle this!. It is the American 
way to compete and create, therefore excell. I am astounded that 
this even has occured, and yes I am aware of the circumstances and 
this is my opinion. wonder what
    DOJ would do to Henry Ford today??
    Susan Griffin
    19407 Turtle Ridge Lane
    Northridge, CA. 91326



MTC-00007823

From: Terry Elder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement between DOJ and Microsoft. I use 
Microsoft products because they are good. I chose them. I was not 
coerced in any way. When I began using a computer, I did not use 
Microsoft products, but after Windows 3.1 came out, I moved and 
gradually used more and more Microsoft products. I certainly don't 
want to see them broken up. As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is a 
great success story and should not be hounded. There are a few 
zealots who can't compete, so they use taxpayer money to try to 
destroy Microsoft with the law. Some of Microsoft's business 
practices probably do need to be modified, and so I agree with the 
settlement.
    Franklin Terry Elder
    8168 Erin Street
    Juneau, AK 99801



MTC-00007824

From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ
    In my opinion, and the opinion of everyone I know, Microsoft 
should have never been sued. They provide amazing software that has 
made my life immensely more successful and rich. Now that a 
settlement has been worked out, I feel it should be accepted as 
written and the matter should be put behind us.
    Thanks,
    Joseph M. Shikany, Seattle WA



MTC-00007825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not prolong a settlement of the Microsoft case. It is 
in the best interests of Microsoft shareholders to end the case as 
soon as possible.



MTC-00007826

From: Mike Eddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done good more for individuals and the US economy 
than any other company in this decade. Penalizing them will only 
hurt customers and benefit some select competitors. Leave Microsoft 
alone.
    Mike Eddy



MTC-00007827

From: Vlad Mayzel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    Leave them alone! They (Microsoft) do a great job and do much 
more good than harm to me, the consumer. Actually, what harm? 
Constantly pushing the industry to the progress? If other suckers 
can not do any better job, they manipulate the government forcing it 
to dig dirt pretending that it is on behalf of the consumers, but in 
reality to make the government to fight for them instead of 
improving their own technology. Of course it is easier and *free* 
but at taxpayer's and consumer's expense.
    If government really wants to help the consumers--fine, HELP any 
of Microsoft's competitors to make their technology BETTER and help 
them RISE to the Microsoft's level, but do not DESTROY Microsoft's 
success forcing it to FALL to the competitor's level, otherwise you 
will get the same kind of results as communists used to get using 
the same approach!
    Thank you for your time.
    Best regards,
    Vlad Mayzel.
    Smart Technologies,
    President.



MTC-00007828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:34am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I AM 69 YEARS OLD AND I AM GREATFUL TO MICROSOFT FOR THEIR 
SOFTWARE. THEY HAVE MADE IT EASY TO USE AND LEARN ABOUT MY COMPUTOR. 
I HAVE OWNED A COMPUTOR FOR ONLY TWO YEARS. PLEASE SETTLE THE 
LAWSUIT SO MICROSOFT CAN GO AHEAD WITH NEW IDEAS. I WANT TO CONTINUE 
TO ENJOY MY COMPUTOR. DON'T MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR US SENIORS.
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,
    BETTY J. ROBERTS
    [email protected]



MTC-00007829

From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:29am
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,

[[Page 24957]]

    Robert Longariello
    Taxpayer and Citizen
    Laguna Niguel, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00007831

From: John Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a consumer I have used computers for sixteen years now. I 
have a computer network setup between my shop, my home, our patio 
area and another house on the property. I harbor no doubt that I am 
not the usual consumer in this respect. I have been very happy 
however to be able to do this networking without having to purchase 
additional software, or to have found the process technically 
intimidating. I have found the inclusion of such items as 
networking, CD playing, mpeg viewing, Internet browsing, e-mail, 
picture viewing and such to be innovation at its best. I have 
purchased programs written by others that allow greater graphics 
capabilities, engineering capabilities and so forth. Essentially 
these programs run flawlessly for me in the MS Windows environment.
    I have in older versions of MS Windows purchased upgrades, one 
for instance was from Real Networks in Seattle, I think they are a 
part of this case also, they offered a free downloadable upgrade. 
What a dirty trick, as soon as I had it they wanted me to buy the 
full functional upgrade, and their newly installed software kept 
activating my firewall software with its attempts to report back to 
Real Networks what features I was making use of in their program 
without my knowledge. This is pretty much akin to planting a Trojan 
horse program and I think the practice stinks. I used their 
uninstall routine and it removed most but not all of their code, I 
still trap messages with it uninstalled trying to ``phone home.'' I 
have not had that problem with Microsoft; in fact Microsoft's 
collection of personal information is entirely upfront and with 
clear explanations.
    Across the same years I worked for Diebold Inc. and spent a 
great deal of time using the IBM operating system OS2. In those 
years IBM clearly attempted to capture a larger portion of the 
desktop PC software marked and they had promotions to that end. 
Diebold used OS2 as the OS on many computer systems, and nearly all 
of their ATM machines. Diebold regarded me during my employment with 
them up until my retirement last year at age 51 as a Fast Track 
Engineer. I got to solve the problems our field technicians were 
stumped on. We had plenty of problems; Windows was not nearly as 
cumbersome, or intolerant as OS2. To amplify the difference further 
between OS2 and Windows, IBM and Diebold were business partners; we 
had special access to IBM engineers to resolve problems. During this 
time I purchased OS2 for a computer at home and attempted to install 
it, even with ``inside'' help, the IBM engineers could not make it 
operate on the hardware I wanted to install it on. I had in fact 
purchased a new 486 system just to play with OS2 on, finally they 
told me all we can recommend is that you buy some new hardware that 
is on our supported list. That was it, I still have a box full of 
OS2 sitting here, and anytime someone wines about Windows I offer it 
to him or her.
    Clearly, most persons have never had to put up with anything 
like what I described above, but I want you to consider with the 
time and talent that IBM has, why couldn't they displace Microsoft. 
I will suggest that the market place chose the best software, and I 
will further suggest that in comparison to what is available the 
only choice for me will be Windows. Diebold Inc, was in the process 
of dropping OS2 for Windows at the time of my retirement. The 
reasons for this boiled down to IBM's failure to put innovations 
into their operating system fast enough for the market place. We 
were connecting ATMs into TCP/IP networks and VPNs, as a result of 
telnet sessions our customers are downloading streaming video and 
audio to our newer products. All of this is just a colossal pain 
because support for these advanced features is just too rudimentary 
in OS2, even though it comes from the granddad of computer giants.
    The enormity of gain to productivity and to our economy during 
the nineties was clearly connected to the computer industry. It is 
also clearly evident that the axe that cut the juggler was the U.S. 
vs. Microsoft, assisted by Judge Jackson. I can't help but feel that 
more innuendo and misconceptions were furthered during that time 
than at any other.
    Microsoft may have business practices that need attention, but 
if the government restricts them in writing software innovation will 
collapse. If the support utilities that are included in Windows 
currently had to be purchased separately and worse yet, from other 
companies, I would not have networked, I probably would not have 
bought at least three of the computers that I currently have, and a 
lot of other consumers would have held back as well. I get a lot for 
my money with Microsoft products and it sounds like to me the 
government would like to see that value stopped. Upgrading software 
over the years has often meant buying new programs. Microsoft up 
until now has retained backwards compatibility with software wrote 
twenty years ago. Apple Computer with most upgrades of their 
operating system trash any legacy software.
    I would like to comment on Sun Microsystems, Scott McNeally has 
publicly stated he intends to litigate against Microsoft forever. I 
always thought threats belonged more to the terrorist than to a 
business, and might even be against the law. But you see, I can see 
why Scott gets so red faced all the time. With the improvements in 
Windows NT the electrical engineering software vendors were no 
longer locked into compiling their code for the Unix operating 
system. Scott built boxes that ran their own version of Unix up 
until this time (there are eight versions of Unix, not one is 
compatible with the other) and when the software tool people saw the 
possibilities in Windows NT and then Compaq and HP started selling 
NT boxes for $6,000 suddenly Scott's $30,000 Unix boxes were not in 
so much demand. Just imagine what that did for his blood pressure, 
its no wonder he gets so red faced when talking about Microsoft.
    Then there is Oracle's Larry no doubt would like to keep 
Microsoft out of the data base arena as well. Microsoft in practice 
takes a product that is way to complex, and costly, and builds a 
version that anyone can use, without factory engineers help, and 
makes it immensely popular by turning it into a commodity product at 
Staples and Wal-Mart. Lastly as I mentioned just before, there are 
eight versions of Unix no less. Software transportability between 
them is close to zilch. If the Unix people can do that to consumers 
it seems strange that Microsoft should have to bear a burden in 
maintaining compatibility for all these other leaches.
    Yours truly,
    John H. Johnston
    Drawer 149
    Boulder, MT 59632
    Fax 406-225-3946
    Phone 406-225-9137



MTC-00007833

From: Didier Maignan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The uncertainty is no good for Technology. The settlement is 
fair. Please consider the impact on the Worldwide economy, and 
accept the agreement already accepted by the 9 states and the 
federal goverment.
    Didier Maignan
    Chairman of ``interprojet''
    France



MTC-00007834

From: Thomas Arthur Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should have never been prosecuted to begin with. It is 
not the business of government tell a legally operating business 
what it can and cannot do. It is necessary for the Justice 
Department to get out of the way, tell the states that ``object'' to 
the settlement to get over it, because it is done. If these states 
have so much time on their hand, that they can afford this case, 
then perhaps they are meccas we all should move to, because they 
have no crime!!!!!!!!!!
    www.geocities.com/thomasweeney/



MTC-00007835

From: Richard Poorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: Give the public a break! Stop spending our tax money and 
settle this stupid extended legal action.
    I have felt, from day one, that Microsoft have conducting some 
undesirable sale practices. But, where was our government watch 
dogs. I'll tell you, they were sleeping at the switch. The public 
used to be protected from product loss leaders which are used to get 
high profit items in front of the unsuspecting consumer. This is 
about all Microsoft was doing. When their competition was taking a 
licking, they complained to Big Uncle. Now, Big Uncle wants to show 
off his

[[Page 24958]]

power and destroy Microsoft. Get real, Microsoft is a fine company, 
has brought great prosperity to America. Give them a minor fine and 
get on down the road to a strong economy. Microsoft lead us in the 
past to great things and will again. I bought 300 shares of 
Microsoft in the middle of this mess because I had confidence that 
Big Uncle would do the right thing. Tell me you will. Give Microsoft 
a minor fine, turn they loose to doing great things for the consumer 
again. Please stop this crazy loss leader practice that is going 
full force today. The dumb public is getting kicked in the ass. 
Banks give away credit cards at low interest rates, just to hook the 
public later. Auto companies sell with zero interest just to hook us 
later when we pay for the over priced cars. My stores have these 
give away items to get me in the store so they can soak me on some 
items that are hard to check. There are laws again this practice but 
Big Uncle just lets it go on. Stop this practice of selling products 
at one price to some consumers and another price to others.
    Get our economy going again!
    Richard Poorman
    2395 Pine Lake Trail
    Arab, AL 35016



MTC-00007836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In reference to Microsoft and the litigation, I feel that 
Microsoft has been very cooperative, not to mention that there is no 
other competitor that even comes close to the Microsoft products!
    Any further litigation is unjust!
    Sincerely,
    Lindsey Ford
    Southern Critters Sales and Marketing LLC



MTC-00007837

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:12am
Subject: lawsuit
    i use microsoft and feel they have done nothing wrong. i can use 
any system and change at any time....to penalize a company for 
advancements is the wrong message to send to start ups.



MTC-00007838

From: Ray Vardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42am
Subject: Settle
    Let Microsoft conduct its business fairly and without the 
federal govt. involvement!!
    Happy Trails!! (:) Anne



MTC-00007839

From: Adam Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To anyone who anyone who may read this, There is an extremely 
gross misunderstanding as to how Microsoft works. It would be much 
more effective for a high level government official to DROP all 
legal action and just ask Microsoft to create a more competitive 
environment. This is the TRUTH!!! Simple and quick. A judgment like 
this would turn the economy around in a day. Microsoft would take 
the responisbilty seriously and would take a commanding role in 
turning things around. Microsoft WILL succeed in whatever direction 
they are pointed in so point them at the common good.
    Adam Gates
    972--742-5465
    [email protected] or [email protected]
    Please feel free to contact me with any questions on my 
comments.



MTC-00007840

From: Ricardo Villar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    It's about time the government (DOJ) stops harassing Microsoft. 
Isn't it enough the harassment they have from their competition? 
It's a tough world out there, when you don't have the privileges of 
being a public servant. Microsoft is responsible for thousand of 
jobs in the States and worldwide. Microsoft made computing 
accessible to everyone, at a time when Motorola, Apple, Netscape and 
others were selling their products to a select group of people who 
could afford their prices and conditions. How can you criticize 
Microsoft for their policies, when the government policies are, some 
times, even dirtier and deadly?
    Stop this case at once and dedicate all your efforts in 
protecting the States from the internal and external enemies, not 
from people who want to make America big.
    Ricardo Villar



MTC-00007841

From: Stanley Shoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's finally get this case behind us. The proposed terms are 
reasonable.



MTC-00007842

From: Risto Raitio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:02am
Subject: Justice and free market economy or Microsoft socialism 
(very briefly!)
    Helsinki, January 3, 2002
    Dear Justice Officer,
    I am a (retired ) theoretical physicist who has worked with 
computers for 30 years, the last ten years in an international 
software company. I've learned American way of life as a visiting 
scientist at Stanford University in 1974-76.
    May I call your attention to the following points: first quoting 
Mr. Ganesh Prasad of Sidney, Australia
    --``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.''
    --``Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result of these 
and other illegally anti-competitive tactics.''
    --``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.''
    Microsoft speaks often of their innovations. Most educated 
people consider Microsoft rather an implementor of other companies' 
innovations. For example, the graphical user interface and the 
spreadsheet software Excel. Another example, Microsoft realised the 
importance of the Internet quite late. Microsoft's unstable 
operating systems (all of them before Windows 2000), proprietary 
software and binary file formats have caused high and unnecessary 
expenses for Microsoft software user organisations. Of course, 
Microsoft claims the opposite. But I'm not against Microsoft, I'm 
only against illegal business methods. In fact, a decent kind of 
Microsoft is needed! The bottom line is whether the United States 
Justice system wants to maintain the free market economy or open the 
door to centrally controlled sectors of economy, which are known to 
fail ultimately.
    Sincerely,
    Risto Raitio, PhD
    Espoo, Finland



MTC-00007843

From: Larry Ownbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi, how are ya?
    The simple fact is that free enterprise is what made USA the 
great nation that it is or should I say was? Let me ask a simple 
question; because Midas makes mufflers does that mean that Ford 
cannot make mufflers? Because Netscape makes a browser should 
Microsoft be disallowed? Smaller software companies have made a 
choice to make programs that rely on Microsoft's operating system. 
As far as I know there is no rule or law that says that they cannot 
develop their own operating system and programs to run under them.
    Netscape chose to make a browser that runs under Microsoft's 
operating system. Why in the name of hell should that mean that 
Microsoft cannot include the browser that they make as a part of 
their operating system. Nowhere in that effort did Microsoft in any 
way do anything that would prevent anybody from getting and using 
any browser they choose. If the other guy wants to compete they need 
to ``make a better whistle''. If they cannot ``make a better 
whistle'' then maybe they should consider another line of work!
    Microsoft has done some great things for this country and it's 
people, I really don't think they should be punished for it. If you 
ask me the whole litigation was just done to make a bunch of nearly 
worthless lawyers rich at the consumer's expense. For every

[[Page 24959]]

good thing that anybody find in what lawyers do I can guarantee 
there are at least 25 bad things. Their sole existence is based on 
the ill fate and sufferings of others. Lawyers will destroy this 
country.
    Thank you,
    Larry Ownbey



MTC-00007844

From: K Orum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2002
    United States Dept of Justice
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in behalf of Microsoft. I don't think there is any 
reason to break up a company that has supplied us with good products 
and good service since personal computing began. I have never felt 
``victimized'' or limited by any of the Microsoft applications. I 
see AOL/Time Warner and your old friend AT&T as much bigger 
problems/threats to the public. I am a subscriber of both of these 
services and feel victimized by their underhanded billing methods 
and misrepresented services.
    I am a shareholder of all three so I don't give this opinion 
carelessly or unfairly.
    Sincerely,
    Karen E. Orum



MTC-00007845

From: tom holzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am quite pleased the case with Microsoft has been settled. In 
my opinion it should never have been brought to begin with. 
Microsoft's competitors in the marketplace were simply using 
government intervention as an attempt to block Microsoft's superior 
marketing skills and products. I am neither connected with Microsoft 
nor am I connected with any other software or hardware company. I 
use Microsoft operating system software on PC's as well as Apple 
operating system software on their machines. I am simply a home 
consumer who feels this whole episode is simply another example of 
politically motivated government waste excess. As a consumer I feel 
the whole prosecution of the government case against Microsoft has 
been a huge waste of time and money. The consumer has never had more 
inexpensive choices for home computing than under the current/
previous market environment. Please go away and leave these people 
alone to innovate and develop new useful products for consumers! If 
you want to do something really useful for me as a consumer you 
should investigate why I can't get connected to the internet at high 
speeds because the last two miles of wire to my house is under 
monopoly control by Ameritech/SBC. This behemoth is clearly blocking 
other companies from selling me true high-speed DSL access.
    This is corruption on a huge scale!
    Regards,
    [email protected]



MTC-00007846

From: Ralph Baur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
    the proposed settlement is reasonable and fair. I totally agree 
that the settlement is good for the customers, the industry and 
morover it means an important signal to the worlds economy. In my 
opinion the settlement is of public interest and I respectfully ask 
the district court to honor this in its fourthcoming decision.
    Best Regards,
    R. Baur



MTC-00007847

From: Chris Boonham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to take the opportunity to record my opinion.
    I believe that the settlement between Microsoft and the federal 
government/nine states, is tough on Microsoft, but is fair to the 
Consumers and the IT industry as a whole. It is in the interests of 
the everyone, including the US economy, for this settlement to 
proceed swiftly to it's final conclusion.
    Thank you.
    Chris Boonham



MTC-00007848

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, do not this situation continue. I believe an end should 
be put to this, and that the present settlement agreement be let 
stand with a guarantee that this settlement stand. Continuing to 
prolong action against Microsoft will not be in the public/consumers 
insterest. This entire action has hurt our economy, industry and the 
American citizen. In my opinion, the continuation of this case over 
so many months was caused mainly by our pre-Bush government and 
politicians.
    I think that when the public learns that Microsoft if no longer 
in litagation, the response of business and citizens will react with 
a positive response.
    Thank you...........LillianEibert



MTC-00007849

From: JACK PURSER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08am
Subject: Settlement
    If you don't leave our corporations alone they will be forced 
out to overseas countries and more of our jobs will be sent over 
there, LEAVE THEM ALONE!
    Jack E. Purser Sr.
    A Voter
    Jack Purser Sr.



MTC-00007850

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe strongly that it is time to settle the Microsoft 
lawsuit and move on. The country is in a recession and it is not 
prudent to stifle innovation on one of our home-grown businesses. 
Microsoft is a business that creates jobs and is a good citizen. The 
settlement is fair and the nine states should be made to accept 
that. Their interests are merely self-serving.
    Madison McCall
    Dorothy McCall, Charlottesville, Virginia



MTC-00007851

From: cauvel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to add my voice to the many people asking you 
to stop this useless waste of public money and resources. The 
continuation of this legal battle can have no benefit to anyone in 
the public sector. You are suing a company for bundling its 
products, and saying you are doing it for the benefit of the people. 
Can I please have someone explain to me how it is going to benefit 
me to have to pay for each seperate piece of my operating system for 
my computer? So, for one price I have recieved everything I need to 
operate my computer and to go online, it works perfectly together, I 
dont have conflicts to deal with in case I buy the wrong thing, and 
most importantly I GOT IT ALL FOR ONE PRICE! I think that this case 
to begin with was baseless harrassment from the government, and with 
everything I have read about it, I still believe that is true. I 
think that we need to go ahead and settle this and move on. And in 
closing, I would just like to mention... AOL/TIME WARNER. Lets apply 
the same rules to all corporations, regardless of who the major 
stockholders are.



MTC-00007852

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:22am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    End your legal attacks on Microsoft. Accept Microsoft's offer. 
The government legal attacks on Microsoft are simply yet again 
attempts to penelize those who are successful, while at the same 
time rewarding those who are not. That is backwards.



MTC-00007853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs--
    I support the Tunney Act. I also support reducing the period of 
copyright protection of computer software (for everyone, not just 
Microsoft), with an option for extension if the copyright holder 
places source code into escrow. We simply must encourage both 
innovation and reuse.
    David DeBrota



MTC-00007854

From: Ron Graves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:24am
Subject: microsoft case
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly object to the protracted suits against Microsoft. As 
a user I feel that

[[Page 24960]]

Microsoft has given me the best possible platform on which to run my 
computer. All other solutions (Linux) appear like solutions looking 
around for a problem--try to install it as opposed to Windows. As a 
former computer programmer, I can appreciate the complexity and work 
that went in to Windows development. Finally, as a shareholder I 
feel that I and the other shareholders have been punished enough 
with the devaluation of the shares since this case first got major 
publicity. Enough is enough and the state Attorneys General should 
stop as well. Let's get on with the business of making Windows 
better and not having a company look over its shoulders all the 
time.
    Ron Graves



MTC-00007855

From: Lois Tilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice Representative,
    I believe the settlement that has been proposed for Microsoft is 
fair and equitable. I support it going forward. Also, I think it 
would further endanger our weakened economy to spend precious time, 
energy and focus on reopening issues that have already been fairly 
settled.
    Please let me know if you have any questions.
    Lois Tilles
    [email protected]



MTC-00007856

From: Dan Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that Microsoft is a innovative company and the 
envy of most of their competitiors. Many of the entities opposed to 
the proposed settlement are either Microsoft competitors, have a 
financial stake in the outcome, or simply do not like any successful 
corporation. Our country has already spent way too many resources on 
this lawsuit which in my opinion is actually hurting the consumer 
and our nation's economy by stifling innovation. If Microsoft ever 
truly harms the consumer, the market will speak. I urge the DoJ to 
accept the proposed settlement and allow (and even encourage) 
technical innovation to once again flourish.
    Dan Cannon
    [email protected]



MTC-00007857

From: Edward W. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please set this case aside. The settlement reached with the 
government should be good enough. Left Microsoft get back to the 
business of writing computer computer programs.



MTC-00007858

From: Rex Plent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I'm a Microsoft share holder and I belive that Microsoft has 
been good for this country and the world! I believe that the company 
was unfairly attacked and that this whole affair should be put to 
rest. Microsoft has been good to me and their products are great. 
Let's get on with it! The world has more important things to be 
concerned about.
    [email protected]



MTC-00007859

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to end this injustice perpetrated by a few competitors 
who simply cry foul because they can't defeat Microsoft on the 
playing field using the normal rules of the game. I am one American 
who truly believes that Microsoft did not violate any laws of this 
great country. Being a fiercely competitive and relentlessly 
intimidating player in the great economic arena of today's world is 
correct, necessary, and JUSTIFIED!
    Microsoft broke no laws. Let us end this travesty now!
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Comments regarding proposed settlement.
    Proposed settlement is too severe to Microsoft.



MTC-00007861

From: Marge Seybert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Show me an American made television set.
    Shanley J. Seybert



MTC-00007862

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the gov't to move on and stop hindering the 
productivity and creativity of the software company that single-
handedly stopped the maddness of the duplicity of operating systems 
(software companies had to re-write the old code just to make it 
available on the different systems instead of innovating), stopped 
the maddness of the duplicity of office software products that all 
worked differently, wouldn't talk to each other and made computers 
hard to work with and limited people to working effectively from 
product to product. Oh...by the way, do you remember the price of 
Lotus 123, which didn't have a new upgrade (1a to 2 and 2.1) for 3 
years.... $395. We now get in MS Office Excel, Word, Powerpoint, 
Outlook and Access for less! Quit it. They have innovated, made the 
product available to everyone all for a significantly less price. Go 
chase some terrorists!
    Charles W. Terry
    13201 Dodie Dr.
    Darnestown, MD 20878



MTC-00007863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle this suit as soon as possible. It is an unjust 
suit to begin with. Microsofr is only guilty of being successful. 
The states attorneys general and the other companies that are suing 
are only being opportunistic. Micosoft is a great company and good 
for our nation.



MTC-00007864

From: Snowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Madam
    I beleave that Microsoft and the American public have and are 
tired of this action. I also beleave that Microsoft is one of the 
fue companys that has a direct influence on our economy, if this 
sort of action is continued the recovery of our economy will be 
delayed.
    Thank you for your time in this grave acxt of misderected 
justice.
    Glenn Eugene; Frantz
    Copyright Notice: All rights reserved re common-law copyright of 
trade-name/trade-mark,
    GLENN
    EUGENE FRANTZ(C)-as well as any and all derivatives and 
variations in the spelling of said trade-name/trade-mark-
Copyright(C) 1969 by Glenn Eugene; Frantz. Said trade-name/trade-
mark,
    GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), may neither be used, nor reproduced, 
neither in whole nor in part, nor in any manner whatsoever, without 
the prior, express, written consent and acknowledgement of Glenn 
Eugene; Frantz as signified by the red-ink signature of Glenn 
Eugene; Frantz, hereinafter ``Secured Party.''
    Secured Party neither grants, nor implies, nor otherwise gives 
consent for any unauthorized use of GLENN EUGENE FRANTZ(C), and all 
such unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.
    Unauthorized User(s):
    (1) grants Secured Party a security interest in, and a distress 
warrant and lien against, User's property and interest in property 
in the sum certain amount of $500,000.00 per each trade-name/trade-
mark used, per each occurrence of use, plus triple damages, plus 
costs for each such use, as well as for each and every use of any 
and all derivatives and variations in the spelling of GLENN EUGENE 
FRANTZ(C);
    (2) authenticates a Security Agreement wherein User is debtor 
and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party and User pledges all of 
User's property and interest in property as collateral for securing 
User's contractual obligation;
    (3) authenticates a UCC Financing Statement wherein User is 
debtor and Glenn Eugene; Frantz is Secured Party;
    (4) consents and agrees that said Financing Statement is a 
continuing financing statement, authorizing Secured Party's filing 
of any continuation statement necessary for maintaining Secured 
Party's perfected security interest in all of User's property and

[[Page 24961]]

rights in property pledged as collateral in the aforementioned 
Security Agreement, until User's contractual obligation theretofore 
incurred has been fully satisfied;
    (5) authorizes the filing of the aforementioned UCC Financing 
Statement and Security Agreement in the UCC filing office by Secured 
Party;
    (6) consents and agrees that any and all such filings referenced 
in paragraph ``(5{time} '' above are not, and may not be considered, 
bogus, and that User will not claim that any such filing is bogus; 
and
    (7) waives all defenses.
    Record Owner: Glenn Eugene; Frantz, Autograph Common Law 
Copyright(C) 1969.



MTC-00007865

From: Bob Sammons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Uncle Sam,
    Please settle this Microsoft fiasco ASAP. September 11th has 
been a drop in the bucket compared to what this government debacle 
has done to the economy.
    Thanks,
    Bob Sammons
    2000 Sammons Davis Ct
    Arlington, Texas 76015



MTC-00007866

From: D. G. Cragar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Get this settled without further litigation.
    D. G. CRAGAR
    P.O. BOX 142
    ADONA, AR 72001-0142



MTC-00007867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    It seems appropriate that the DOJ finalize the settlement 
agreement at this time.
    I found it hard to comprehend the concept that Microsoft stifled 
competition when they actually were an incubator and catalyst for 
the most concentrated intellectual development in history. Sour 
grapes has cost all of us too much time and money. Get on with the 
settlement and let's get back to more important issues.
    Sincerely,
    James J. Morgan
    Paradise Valley, AZ.



MTC-00007868

From: rufuswon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of the proposed settlement and wish to see it 
implemented.
    Jeff Ballard



MTC-00007869

From: James R. Wright Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe your proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust action is fair and equitable. Your propsal will continue 
to allow research and development of new products and technoligies 
by the best and brightest in the industry.
    I also believe any further restrictions would significantly 
inhibit future advances in technical development areas if large 
vendors like Microsoft is restricted, just so it will be preceived 
``fair'' for other developers to enter the market. Regardless of the 
software developers size if their products are actually good they 
will find a place in the market. After all didn't Microsoft succeed 
in a market dominated by IBM when it first started?
    I don't remember the Justice Department going after IBM to level 
the playing field for Microsoft.
    The unique thing about private enterprise is consumers do have 
brains and they will do what's best for themselves regardless of 
what is perceived a ``politically correct.''
    I hope you will stick with your original decision and allow the 
consumers like me determine what is good and what is bad in the 
market place, not the courts. Let's put an end to this type of 
corporate harassments once and for all!
    James R. Wright Sr.
    313 East Appleby Avenue
    Cambridge, Maryland 21613



MTC-00007870

From: Colleen Chapman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:28am
Subject: Memory !!!
    Hello--
    This whole damn thing with Microsoft is stupid ! Way back when 
computers were just getting started into home desktops Apple came 
out with their OS and wouldn't license or allow anyone to use their 
system. Monopoly ?? Several other systems were developed for the IBM 
clones, Microsofts DOS among them. Why did Microsoft become the 
system in use ?? For the reasons of 1 that it was reasonably user 
friendly and 2 mainly it was available to the whole market. In days 
gone by when a person developed something that the buying public 
wanted he could make a profit and build a business. Now that common 
sense has taken a back seat to Lawyerize if a person is successful 
he gets sued. Pure male bovine fecal material.
    I'm a retired Los Angeles City fireman and have seen bureaucracy 
in action big time. The whole message of this deal and the other 
many ``do gooder'' issues will do nothing but stifle any incentive 
of the people that have ambitions other than being a happy hamburger 
flipper.
    Cordially and sincerely. Howard L Chapman



MTC-00007871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:31am
Subject: Tunney Act
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please, enough already with hassling Microsoft and Bill Gates! 
Bill Gates has done a lot of good for our country with his company 
Microsoft! Stop the nonsense and leave the good company and Bill 
Gates along already! Just because a few of our government elected 
officials are against Microsoft and Bill Gates because of the 
brilliant man he is and because he has founded one of the best 
companies in the world gives our government NO right to continue to 
harass him!
    I say to our government ENOUGH ALREADY! Spend our tax dollars on 
more important issues in this country, like coming up with a way 
STOP THE TERRORIST THAT THEY ALLOW INTO THE USA!
    Sincerely,
    Mary Chance
    20515 East Country Club Drive
    Apt. #2243
    Aventura, Fla
    33180
    305-937-1507



MTC-00007872

From: Robert Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:37am
Subject: microsoft settlemant
    i think it was crazy to go after microsoft in the first place. 
look at what the market has done because of it !. get off their 
back, please



MTC-00007873

From: STAN HELENIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:43am
Subject: pro-microsoft
    i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too 
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine 
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l 
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the 
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft 
alone. stan h.



MTC-00007874

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:45am
Subject: Subj: Microsoft settlement
    To whom this email concerns;
    I do believe that the settlement that has already been agreed 
upon between Microsoft and the US Government/States, I believe it to 
be fair for all parties concerned. Most of all this settlement is in 
the best interest of the American public and the country as a whole. 
I am in favor of the courts settling this case to allow our country 
to get on with the recovery that is so badly needed. I see no 
further litigation's needed. It is time that we as a country get 
this case behind us and to go on with the more important issues 
facing the nation and the economy.
    Thank you so much for taking the time to read my comments 
dealing with the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Mr. William MacKenzie



MTC-00007875

From: STAN HELENIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: STAN HELENIAK [email protected]>

[[Page 24962]]

To: [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: pro-microsoft
    i am a canadian doing extensive work in the states.i find too 
much critical emphasis as of late on microsoft by the nine 
states..it seems to me that sun,aol and others are lobbying still..l 
am very happy with my new XP operating system as well as the 
previous others..let the american dream persevere and let microsoft 
alone. stan h.
    p.s. BILL GATES,IN MY OPINION IS AN EXTRAORDINARY PHILANTHROPIST 
AND MODEL AMERICAN.



MTC-00007876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Get done with this! This is way too long and too expensive to 
continue. Had Microsoft been issuing product at an exorbitant rate 
then you have cause to worry. Microsoft is and has been attacked 
because they got there first! I thought that this was the way it 
worked in the US, at least it did for my forty years in business.
    John Arnold
    Little River, SC 29566



MTC-00007877

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:56am
Subject: Settlement
    It's time to end this ridiculous lawsuit against one of 
America's finest corporations.
    From what I read in the media, Microsoft's offer is more than 
fair. This corporation has made the U.S. the leader in computer 
sciences, has added to the security of the country, and has done 
nothing to be ashamed of.
    Time to end this persecution of a fine corporation!
    Al Kay, Orlando, Fl



MTC-00007878

From: Ed Schone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a Microsoft consumer and I use both IBM compatible and 
Macintosh computers. I use Microsoft software on both types of 
computers. Why--because it provides the most advanced features at 
prices I can afford. Even on the Macintosh, where there is very 
little Microsoft software available compared to the IBM compatible 
world, when I had the choice, I've bought Microsoft (or downloaded 
free) over the other venders. You guys have done enough. Just let 
agreed decision carry on and let Microsoft continue to develop 
innovative software products.
    Ed Schone
    [email protected]
    704.573.4177



MTC-00007879

From: Harvey Waxman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What good does it do to protest? Microsoft owns the operating 
system world. Why else would a cumbersome, complex, frustrating and, 
generally acknowledged to be, inferior operating system prevail? 
Could it be that Mr. Gates had the vision to understand that once 
his DOS was installed on the vast majority of computers in homes, 
courtesy of his arrangement with IBM, he could do anything he wanted 
without the benefit of competition?
    There is no competition because of stupid and naive decisions 
made by Apple computer. But the fact is that there is no 
competition.
    Harvey Waxman D.M.D.
    73 Wright Lane
    Wickford, RI 02852-5846



MTC-00007880

From: JOHN BASHAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58am
Subject: Re: Settlement
    I am writing to your to urge you to approve the settlement with 
Microsoft. I am a user of Microsoft products and have felt all 
through this court case that I have purchased a good product at a 
fair price. Jack Basham ``One of the penalties for refusing to 
participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your 
inferiors.''
    Plato



MTC-00007881

From: James MacLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    Please do not punish Microsoft beyond the current negotiated 
settlement. Business is about competition which include strategies 
and tactics that may not seem fair to people who are not in 
business.
    This entirely DEMOCRAT suit has damaged our economy. Don't make 
it any worse.
    Thank you,
    James A MacLaughlin
    1633 Eton Way
    Crofton, MD 21114



MTC-00007882

From: Vern Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to thank you for settling with Microsoft. Please 
don't let all those whiney competitors dictate what they think is 
right for the consumer and the economy when they are really only 
concerned about themselves. Your settlement with Microsoft IS the 
right thing for consumers and the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon A. Scoggins
    13937 Dovehunt Place
    Charlotte, NC 28273



MTC-00007883

From: Ruth Pennock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case. Thank you.



MTC-00007884

From: BRIAN HOLLAND
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:03am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Sirs,
    After years of debate, argument, charge and counter charge, 
conflict, and inflammatory unsubstantiated claims of wrong doing, a 
settlement has been achieved between the government and Microsoft. 
It is my opinion that the energy and resources, both human and 
capital, that have been exhausted during this period went way beyond 
what was required to protect consumers from the abuses of market 
domination.
    The settlement achieved is fair. The competitive model of 
commerce in the most advanced and admired economy in the world has 
been preserved. Free market competition incents innovation and 
growth, and ultimately advances the quality of life for all.
    I urge you to accept this settlement and reaffirm the character 
of commerce in the U.S.
    Sincerely,
    L. Brian Holland
    PO Box 353
    13091 Kibler Road
    Greensboro, MD 21639



MTC-00007885

From: bill shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this ridiculous case ASAP!!!!



MTC-00007886

From: Alice Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that it is essential to our country and our economy that 
the Microsoft case be settled for once and all; I hope the most 
recent settlement will be quickly approved and initiated.
    Alice Allen



MTC-00007887

From: KEN NELSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why punish a company that has competed fairly on a head to head 
basis?
    Why punish a company that has kept prices ``LOW'' not high?
    Why punish a company that has done so very much for the high 
tech industry, this country and the world?
    Why punish a company for doing such a good job?
    Doesn't punishing a company for doing well send the wrong 
message to our children, friends and family?
    Thank you.
    Ken Nelson



MTC-00007888

From: Robert P. Blaisdell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice (DOJ) Representative, Marzen Group 
LLC is a small

[[Page 24963]]

business that integrates software and provides secure solutions for 
Department of Defense (DOD), as well as our commercial customers. 
Our Corporate headquarters is located in New Hampshire and we also 
have a location in Alabama. Our expertise includes supporting and 
securing both the Windows-based and UNIX platforms, software 
development, and providing turnkey hardware/software solutions to 
our various customers. Our customer's requirements are split on a 
platform basis as follows: 85% demand for Windows and 15% for UNIX/
Linux.
    (By the way, it has been our experience that the UNIX space 
within DOD is controlled by Sun Microsoft Systems Solaris at about 
92%. Within our commercial UNIX space, it has been our experience 
that the market share for Sun Microsoft Systems appears to be the 
same. We have also seen that the DOD router space is controlled by 
CISCO to the tune of about 96%. If market share is the key indicator 
there are lots of other antitrust targets depending how you define 
the market space.)
    We have followed the case against Microsoft and have reviewed 
the DOJ settlement. We agree with Microsoft that the settlement is 
fair and preserves the ability of our company to continue compete in 
the software integration and security marketplace, while preserving 
Microsoft's right to be innovative with their products. Since the 
case began, the software industry has continued to become more 
competitive place, and we believe this will continue especially 
during these economic down turn. The fact there are ten times more 
software developers choosing to use the Microsoft economic model and 
tools, should not be worrisome to DOJ. This means that many third 
party companies, like my company, are betting their futures using 
the development platform framework provided by Microsoft, will work 
correctly with that framework. It means many jobs for our citizens 
and it allows customers to obtain the best software solutions made 
in the world. If each software company had to develop our own 
framework, much like the current state of UNIX/Linux, the cost and 
time to market of products that are needed would be significantly 
higher. In some cases this would force us to scrap the project, thus 
leaving our customers with inferior solutions.
    The United States is known for its innovative capabilities 
within the software arena. Microsoft is an important partner in this 
space as well as other companies like Oracle, Sun and Red Hat. 
Microsoft has significantly invested in Standards Groups, which 
benefits all software developers, regardless of their O/S 
affiliation. Microsoft's large scale support of the open standards 
committees (IETF, UPNP, W3, to name just a few) has helped them to 
become even a better corporate citizen within the software industry. 
The restrictions placed on Microsoft by your agreement will also 
allow us to move past the period of uncertainty which has plagued 
many companies for several years. As a company president, I can tell 
you that waiting for this legal case to be settled, has had a 
significantly impacted our strategic planning model for the past 
couple of years. With the case settled, it will allow companies like 
ours, to forge ahead with strategic plan, certain that we they are 
based on a development framework that is understood and will be 
stable for the foreseeable future.
    The settlement DOJ proposed, and that was accepted by Microsoft, 
is fair and we believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of 
the US. I urge DOJ to stay the course with the settlement as 
proposed, to remove the cloud of uncertainty over software 
integration and third party development plans and to move forward. 
Let get on with the business of providing innovative solutions to 
our citizens!
    Bob Blaisdell--President
    M?rzen Group LLC
    35 Pine Street Ext.
    Millyard Technology Park
    Nashua, NH 03060-3213
    Corporate: 603.889.9522 Mobile: 603.860.8200
    Fax 603.889.9567 [email protected]
    www.marzen.com
    CC:mailbox@gregg. senate.gov@inetgw, [email protected]. . .



MTC-00007889

From: Punto Info
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:15am
Subject: Domini Prestigiosi
    ACQUISTA un di questi 5 autorevoli domini:
    AFFARI.INFO IMPRESA.INFO
    SPONSOR.INFO SPOT.INFO
    LESBO.INFO
    E avrai da subito un grande numero di visitatori, senza contare 
il prestigio che la tua azienda ne trarrebbe.
    Per informazioni: http://www.toprete.com/domain.htm



MTC-00007890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft
    The settlement reached with the 9 states is a big step in the 
right direction. I find it ridiculous that American companies fight 
each others while foreign companies competing in the same field try 
to fill the gap. Microsoft is a pioneer and it is a shame that other 
companies which could not catch up attempt to penalize Microsoft. 
Who are these people who do not accept the rules of free market ? 
and what are the benefits for US companies to continue this legal 
war ? Abroad people are laughing when they see the millions of 
dollars spent on this purely legal fees. ... What is the finality ? 
Certain CEO of losing companies should swallow their ego and accept 
the ruling. ...
    I expect the DOJ do bring an end to this case against one of the 
biggest pride of the USA.
    Jean-Michel Menoud



MTC-00007891

From: njcolonna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:20am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TIME TO PUT AN END TO THIS ISSUE. PLEASE STOP NOW AND LET'S MOVE 
ON TO BETTER THING TO DO. WE HAVE REVISITED THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE.
    I AM CONFIDENT YOU RESPECTS THE VIEWS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS LIKE 
MYSELF WHO WISH FOR OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM TO ACT WITH CARE ! PLEASE 
CEASE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS WITH GOING FORTH WITH A CASE SETTLEMENT 
REVIEW.
    SINCERELY, NORM COLONNA 440 237 4581



MTC-00007892

From: LotusInn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:28am
Subject: We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our 
success as a company and personally. We t
    We support the efforts of Microsoft and its effect on our 
success as a company and personally. We think that Microsoft has had 
a tremendous benefit on our nation by enhancing people's 
productivity.
    This keeps inflation down. We see no need for this unnecessary 
litigation. We realize that Microsoft's software and innovation has 
made our life better.



MTC-00007893

From: philip.lindsey@na. biomerieux. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please let it be known as part of the Public Record that I am in 
favor of a full settlement of this case in favor of Microsoft. We 
have better things to do in this country than to penalize a 
successful organization that is a backbone of our economy. Please 
stop this madness.
    Philip M. Lindsey, C.P.M.
    bioMrieux, Inc.
    Hazelwood, MO



MTC-00007894

From: Mark E Fogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    It is now time to settle the Microsoft case. Microsoft is one of 
the leading companies in the tech field. You must realize that the 
companies fighting Microsoft have a vested interest in causing the 
company trouble. The states attorney generals still holding out are 
more interested in enhancing their political careers than anything 
else. Settlement of this case with the current solution is the best 
option.
    Mark E. Fogg



MTC-00007895

From: Michele Acerra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:31am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT.
    Ladies or Gentlemen.
    I understand that the D.O.J. is accepting comments on the 
``Microsoft proposed settlement''.
    My opinion is that the proposed settlement is fair and that 
should be enforced. I believe that all the States should accept it 
and in fact

[[Page 24964]]

I believe that they should not have entered in the litigation since 
this was, if any, a federal offense and was already prosecuted by 
the D.O.J. Although undoubtedly there were abuses by Microsoft of 
their technological and commercial position, I believe that it is 
time to move on and that freedom of innovation has to be respected 
and protected.
    Sincerely,
    Michele Acerra



MTC-00007896

From: Robert Dreyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft.
    It seems that so called lidigation into the Microsoft law suit 
has become no more than an extortion on the part of a bunch of 
greedy people who use the excuse of ``were only thinking about whats 
best for the people''. I don't think any of the Attorney generals 
whether they be Federal of state have any other reason for the suit 
except its a place to shake a Co. down for the money All these law 
suits are just for the money be it greedy lawyers or state and 
federal offices. Get off microsofts back and let them go on about 
there business. It seems if a Co. has some smart people and is 
innovative we can't have that, we have to bring them down to our 
level. Thats the way people in government work any body with brain 
doesn't stand a chance there is no room in government for a thinker.
    Sam Spade



MTC-00007897

From: Joseph Maccaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:35am
Subject: complete the agreement
    Sirs:
    We urge the DOJ to end the Microsoft case and implement the 
recent government-Microsoft agreement. It is time to direct DOJ 
energy to other critical matters.
    Mr & Mrs J. Maccaro
    154-61 22 Ave
    Whitestone NY 11357



MTC-00007898

From: Kenney, George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:38am
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the Microsoft settlement because the parties 
harmed by the business practices are not compensated by the proposed 
settlement.
    1) Low income school district are not the customers who 
purchased Microsoft products. The proposal to only provide relief to 
low-income schools, as opposed to all schools is a Robin Hood feel 
good approach to the problem. As a consumer who has been required to 
purchase Microsoft products, both stand alone and pre-loaded by the 
manufacturers of the PC's I have purchased, my children do not go to 
low income schools and therefore will derive no benefit from the 
settlement.
    2) Competitors of Microsoft will be further harmed by being 
excluded from selling products to the schools which will be flooded 
with Microsoft products as a result of the settlement. The damage to 
these competitors will actually increase as a result of this 
settlement.
    I would like to see this settlement be rejected for the reasons 
mentioned above.
    sincerely,
    George Kenney
    1304 Sequoia Rd
    Naperville, IL 60540
    Phone: + 630 541 8628
    Fax: + 630 541 8204
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00007899

From: Donna (038) Gary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To the DOJ. It is my opinion that you should end the battle with 
Microsoft and go forward with the settlement.
    Personally I believe the suit was wrong from the get go. We need 
more innovative companies like Microsoft. They make a good 
product,market it well, and make money doing it. This gives people 
jobs that provide the income to help stimulate the economy. When 
Microsoft raises their prices to help pay the settlement who gets 
hurt? Us the people your ``protecting'' that's who. Open and free 
competition is what drives a market, not the courts.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my views.
    Gary Chierici



MTC-00007900

From: Daviduk, Matthew
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: Comment
    If not for Microsoft, where would we be today? The settlement is 
fair. For the goodness of the technology world and the consumers out 
there, let it be settled.
    Is there going to be the same lawsuits against companies like 
AOL?
    The software industry would self-destruct if Microsoft goes 
away. . . . But if I were Bill Gates, I would say ``Fine, you don't 
appreciate my contributions . . . then Good Bye''



MTC-00007901

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:42am
Subject: Settlement
    I think that it is a bunch of c------ for a company having to 
share with others who have been sitting on their duff what they have 
achieved with their efforts. If I were Bill Gates I'd tell them to 
go U know where.



MTC-00007902

From: Arnold(u)Agre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I as Microsoft investor and user have been concerned about 
antitrust suit against Microsoft for some time. While Microsoft has 
become more or less the standard for their operating system and 
personal computer software, they earned it by providing innovative 
products. I believe I as a consumer have benefited from what 
Microsoft has done over the years.
    The Department of Justice has spent millions of tax payer 
dollars over the years prosecuting a case that I as a consumer feel 
was unnecessary to begin with. Microsoft has spent millions of 
dollars defending themselves. This money could have been used for 
more R&D or made Microsoft more profitable which would have enhanced 
the value of the stock in my portfolio. I think it ridiculous to 
punish a company because they have been successful.
    The uncertainty caused my this litigation needs to stop. 
Microsoft has agreed to a settlement that I think goes far beyond 
what was required. I think it is in the public interest that the 
case be settled with the terms that have been agreed to by the DOJ 
and Microsoft.
    Arnold Agre
    8762 Gray Fox Dr.
    Evergreen, Co 80439



MTC-00007903

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected] ; [email protected] ;
    [email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected] ; [email protected] ; 
[email protected] ; [email protected]
    Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:11 PM
    Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    Watching MS behavior for years I do not favor a settlement as 
they have destro yed what once was a very competitive marketplace. 
The unethical behavior t hey have shown should not be rewarded with 
a slap on the wrist.
    Charlie May



MTC-00007904

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Dan Van Fleet'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:01 AM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    Hi,
    I'm from Ohio, one of the states that wimped out on the 
Microsoft case. I stand and applaud you all for not stopping without 
a real fix. I use OS/2, Linux. Of course I'm forced to use Microsoft 
products in many

[[Page 24965]]

instances. I have noted that not only is OS/2 superior to all 
versions of Windows including XP, I believe that Microsoft used 
unfair monopolistic tactics to quash OS/2. (The psudo 32 bit 
extensions that Word required, which broke OS/2 in the early 90's 
would be one of them)
    I was very happy with Judge Jackson's understanding of the 
industry, it was the FIRST time in history that I thought a Judge 
had a clue about the IT industry. Depressingly, he let Microsoft get 
the best of him, (his temper had to have been raised due to the lies 
MS told in his court, which were proven to be lies in his court) and 
he spouted of when he shouldn't have.
    Anyway, Keep up the good work, stand your ground. BTW, I've also 
contacted Betty Montgomery (AG-Ohio) to express my displeasure with 
their actions.
    Dan Van Fleet
    Springfield, Ohio
    [email protected]
    Standard disclaimer: My E-mail address is for communications for 
and between myself and the address list of this original e-mail 
only. It is not for sale, rent, trade, barter, or any other purpose. 
You have not right to give, sell, trade, or otherwise transmit it, 
without my consent.



MTC-00007905

From: David Storm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is crime to continue to let the Microsoft 
competitors that can't compete in the marketplace to continue to 
hound Microsoft in the courts. What has started as an argument over 
whether Microsoft could enhance their product by incorporating a 
browser, has degenerated into ``we don't like them because they are 
so successful, or so competitive, and therefore we must hamstring 
them''.
    I think it is fairly clear that Microsoft has sparked the 
current technological revolution. Remember it was just 8-10 years 
ago that we felt our technological economy would be surpassed by the 
Japanese. What has happened?. Obviously, without government 
inference in the marketplace, good old American ingenuity came 
through again. I believe I am getting a better product for less 
money because of Microsoft.
    Settle the case without killing Microsoft. As a consumer I don't 
want to have another ATT-like breakup.
    David Storm



MTC-00007906

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``John Losse'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 5:43 PM
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-00007907

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE settle the Microsoft litigation as negotiated. This has 
gone on long enough. It is time to put this behind us and move on. 
Thank you for your attention in this matter.



MTC-00007908

From: david schofield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I urge you to go through with and approve the settlement 
approved by the DOJ and Microsoft.
    The operating system is so inexpensive relative to what you get, 
it is hard for me to relate to the statement that Microsoft charged 
too much.
    Please end this nonsense.
    David Schofield
    7675 Classic Way
    Atlanta, Georgia 30350
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00007909

From: Richard A. Beers, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice Representative:
    I find the Microsoft settlement to be a good one that is fair to 
all concerned parties. I would urge the DOJ to proceed with the 
settlement and NOT to pursue further litigation. Thank you for 
considering my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rich Beers
    Richard A. Beers, MD
    Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology
    SUNY Upstate Medical University
    Syracuse, NY 13210
    phone 315-464-4720
    email [email protected]>



MTC-00007910

From: Larry Rehg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to stop the litigation against Microsoft and get on 
with the important things in our country, like getting rid of those 
forces that want to topple our way of life and government. It's 
obvious to me that those who want to prolong this debacle are just 
looking for a big ``pay check'' and don't give a darn about the rest 
of the citizens.
    We know you're powerful, so you don't need to prove it by 
continuing this maddening attack on private industry.
    Larry M. Rehg
    Plano, Texas



MTC-00007911

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When we had nothing better to do, it was fashionable to blame 
Microsoft for the world's ills. We have lived through Sept.11th, so 
with thanks to G-d, let's get on with living and once again smile 
when we read the rising stock market prices. Settle the damn case!!!



MTC-00007912

From: Gale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam--
    I am writing you to let you know my opinion about the Microsoft 
pending settlement. The courts need to do whatever possible to see 
that this settlement goes through. Microsoft has done some things 
that may have hurt competition, but the consumers have done nothing 
but benefit from their products and practices. Consumers are being 
hurt so much more by all the litigation that is going on. What 
Microsoft has done for the consumer is force all software companies 
to make their products compatible with each other, make them easier 
to use and offer more features. The monopolistic practices may have 
hurt competition in the long run, but us consumers are much better 
off right now. The only people really standing to benefit from 
further litigation and/or a more stringent ruling against Microsoft 
is Microsoft's competitors. If this is truly a case to protect 
consumers, then protect us by allowing this settlement to go through 
and forcing other states not signing it to settle quickly. If 
competitors' products are as good as what Microsoft produces, let 
the capitalistic marketplace benefit these companies. Having the 
government assist them in gaining market share will not benefit 
consumers.
    Thank you,
    Gale Dahlager
    Co-Owner (and bookkeeper) of Razor Rock Racing
    (bicycle component manufacturer)



MTC-00007913

From: George Dziuk Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I would strongly urge you to settle this matter on terms 
favorable to Microsoft. Without companies like MS, the future of 
this country's ability to compete and lead in important economic 
areas will be severely restricted.
    I grant anyone the argument that there are warts all over 
Microsoft but they pale in comparison to the great good that MS 
brought to the computer industry years ago when a standard operating 
system didn't exist and those, like myself, who were into the infant 
personal computer craze wondered how anyone outside a big company 
could ever use one? It was too hard to buy a CPM based machine like 
I did then watch things go over to DOS and then wonder if Apple was 
going to really be ``it'' after all.

[[Page 24966]]

    DOS did make it and the rest is history. Without Bill Gates 
imposing the industry standards, regardless of whether anyone agrees 
with how he did it, this country would still be doing things with 
pen and paper on ledger sheets.
    George L. Dziuk Jr.



MTC-00007914

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not belive in more litigation. The settlement is good and 
fair for all. Thanks,
    Carlos Diaz



MTC-00007915

From: John Kerr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears that the settlement allows for benefits to 
organizations that would not normally recieve benefits. Additionally 
the heightened awareness of the issue should preclude these actions 
in the future there by putting the issue to rest. Now is not the 
time to further weaken our economy by adapting the rules to favor a 
few.
    I think the Government would be better served by applying its 
resources to areas where help is truly needed such as airport and 
border security and the rights of individuals trying to access our 
Country.
    Regards,
    John Kerr



MTC-00007916

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to complete this settlement and get on with other 
business. In my mind most of the allegations were unfounded to begin 
with, and the government was overzealous in it's pursuit of 
Microsoft.
    James F. Ashbaugh



MTC-00007917

From: Raymond Le Blanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03am
Subject: Settlement
    I want to suggest that the DOJ accept the settlement terms as 
proposed by Microsoft as being fair and equitable to the consumer 
public.
    With warmest regards,
    Ray Le Blanc



MTC-00007918

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    Can we please put this matter behind all of us so we can get on 
with better things?
    As a consumer, Microsoft has revolutionizd my personal and 
business life. I never felt they cheated me on the prices of their 
products. Moreover, it appears these anti-trust actions were brought 
not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the 
competititors and a bunch of attorneys who wanted to advance their 
careers.
    Even the class-action suit is a sham. How can an agreement to 
drop the suit in exchange for the company making a contribution to 
charities be of benefit to the class of plaintiffs the suit was 
originally designed to benefit? As a stockholder of many years, the 
Company has been very good to me, and I have no apologies. That's 
what our enterprise system is all about.
    Robert G. Saliba



MTC-00007919

From: jack engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:07am
Subject: settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The settlement with Microsoft is more than fair to the public. 
Please don't let the special interest groups and wanna-be Microsoft 
competitors get in the way of progress, and innovation. Microsoft 
has done far more good for this country than any opther firm I can 
think of.
    John A. Engel, Jr.
    Susan C. Engel
    small shareholders
    Jack Engel
    82 South Avenue
    New Canaan, CT 06840
    203 966-7576



MTC-00007920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May I add my voice as you consider the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. The suite brought against Microsoft and subsequent 
judgment was the beginning of the recession we find ourselves in at 
present. Please settle this matter as presented by Microsoft so it 
serves to lead us out of the recession and on the road to recovery. 
Our Congress is dragging it's feet. The Department of Justice can 
make a major contribution in moving our economy forward by rendering 
a timely decision.
    Lee Morrow



MTC-00007921

From: vera reitmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    WILL YOU PLEASE SETTLE THIS CASE ASAP!! IT IS COSTING US MONEY 
AND THE ECONOMY NEEDS A BOOST!!
    SINCERELY, V. REITMEIER



MTC-00007922

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: I like my Microsoft Stuff
    I see no problem with Microsoft and its operations. It is easy, 
quick and convienient.
    Don't mess with Microsaoft !!!
    Axel Henri



MTC-00007923

From: Tom Collison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the judgement imposed on Microsoft as it now stands, 
is fair. In my opinion, futher litigation delays implementation of 
the present agreement. Microsoft is an aggressive but innovative 
company whose developments have driven the entire industry rapidly 
forward.
    Thank You,
    Tom Collison.



MTC-00007924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:11am
Subject: (no subject)
    i feel that microsoft has done nothing wrong and this whole 
affair is a sham.



MTC-00007925

From: anthony vorias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:13am
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    I'm In favor of settling the Microsoft case as soon as possible 
for the following reasons:
    1. What we have is a solid American company that should continue 
to do world wide business and not be ham-strung by spending millions 
on non productive defense of their case. Put that revenue and effort 
to positive future use.
    2. The products provided are productive and are at a fair price.
    3. Settlement was to provide computers & software to schools. 
Lets do it but modify the deal. 50% of the settlement products will 
be Microsoft's and the other 50% in Dollar value will be paid of by 
Microsoft for other manufacturers products and software. i.e. they 
can buy Microsoft, Apple, Linus etc, etc. etc WHATEVER THE SCHOOLS 
CHOOSE!!![ Microsoft will pay up to 50% of the settlement fee] Let's 
get these kids working with the technology of the future!! T. Vorias



MTC-00007926

From: Robert Sori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I use Windows, and several of the other products that 
have abused the legal process to try to defeat Microsoft in the 
courtroom.
    Windows is a great operating program that comes with several 
basic programs, The ability to surf the net, write a note, listen to 
an music file.
    Do you really think the consumer benefits from getting nothing 
in the package, and having to buy add-ons from day one.
    If I use my computer for graphics, the included ``Paint'' 
program is inadequate. But it's inclusion is just fine if my kids 
want to play with it. The same is true for ``notepad'' it is simple 
a basic way to type a note, not some conspiracy to destroy 
Wordperfect. And as for ``Internet Explorer'' has anyone installed 
Netscape, why can Netscape assume after installation that it is the 
default program for surfing the internet, and that is fine. Isn't 
this an unfair practice?
    You can not include every program that exists in the Windows 
package, and

[[Page 24967]]

excluding one over another is bound to effect the company not 
selected.
    The Government should not be in the business of siding with one 
company over another. And like the supposed cigarette settlement, 
This trial will only enrich some small group of lawyers. I have 
several checks for .75 or .60 cents, my portion of a multi million 
dollar credit card company trial, The Lawyer who though up the 
lawsuit gets 20 to 30 percent of the total, while the supposedly 
injured parties get literally pennies. This is your great profession 
at work, this is how your efforts help the injured.
    But I doubt any effort will be made to insure that settlement 
money is fairly distributed, and Lawyers don't walk away with 
millions while the litigants get pennies.
    What's next?
    Why don't you DOJ people starts to look at the buggy whip 
conspiracy, how Detroit industrialist, worked to create the 
automobile, and destroyed the leather industry giants. Or how 
electricity destroyed the candles makers, get real people, move on.
    Robert Sori
    7716 Robinglen Ave.
    Las Vegas, NV 89131



MTC-00007927

From: Garron (038) Anita Riechers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough. The settlement reached is equitable for all 
parties. As a consumer, I am satisfied. Call it a done deal and move 
on to something meaningful.
    Garron Riechers DDS



MTC-00007928

From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:21am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
From: Jim/Carol Renfrow
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:23 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ--
    Come on guys...it's settled. Let's get on with getting on. If 
this case is continued, you are starting to look foolish. Any 
further consideration by DOJ against Microsoft will further show how 
a few individuals in your department has a personal vendetta against 
Microsoft and Bill Gates.
    Let American Capitalism and Democracy work....get out of the 
way.
    Jim Renfrow
    2400 Columbine Lane
    Montrose, CO 81401-5646
    [email protected]
    (970)-249-6511
    PS. I'm a 56 year old who has been a registered Democrat all my 
life and have never voted for a Republican Presidential Candidate.



MTC-00007929

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:27am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    Believe that it is the public and the government's best interest 
that the above be expedited ASAP with minimal restrictions on 
Microsoft's ability to compete in marketplace. DOJ should remember 
and learn from similar efforts in the eighties to restrict IBM which 
came close to wiping out that company. Legal efforts at restricting 
operations in this area are usually doomed to failure because of its 
nature.
    J. Kahn
    Redding, CT



MTC-00007930

From: John Koval
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft
    The government needs to get out of the free business 
environment. Microsoft is what every American is working for, the 
American dream! Stop the wining competitors of Microsoft and tell 
them to put their wasted efforts into their business and compete in 
the free business world. The handcuffs should be taken off 
Microsoft. Stop wasting the tax payers money. Tell Sun, Oracle and 
the rest of them to compete on the business platform or choose 
another business to pursue. I have strong competitors in my business 
field and I am wondering if the DOJ is going to fight my battles. 
Shame on the politicians using this issue for additional press time 
for their own personal gains. It is time to put an end to this 
nonsense!
    John Koval



MTC-00007931

From: Cyril Paciullo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally think that Microsoft do excellent software and 
competitors should be ashamed to give so much efforts in the 
destruction of this company. Without Windows, most of these 
competitors wouldn't even exist. I agree that Microsoft, due to 
businesss reasons, made some hard choices in some of its designs but 
companies such as Netscape chosed to take their time to anoy 
Microsoft and not to try to improve their software.
    Cyril Paciullo.



MTC-00007932

From: Marjorie M. Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft very well maybe a powerful company and top in computer 
stuff, but let me tell you what happened in my home some years ago. 
My son was having trouble with his microsoft windows program and 
wanted to change so we went to a local computer store and bought OS 
(I don't remember what version it was) he wiped the computer clean, 
reformmated the hard drive and install OS--What a mess we ended up 
with, the computer kept freezing up and when it didn't there wasn't 
anything you could do that was compatible with anything else, so OS 
got the boot and Microsoft windows was reinstalled, there isn't 
enough competition out there that is useable for the computer 
dummies like me to use anything but Microsoft Windows. I realize 
there are those that say if there was anything else available they 
wouldn't use Microsoft, seems to me like those that want to cut down 
Microsoft just are not thinking beyond the end of their nose, they 
want to make demands that could very well be unreasonable, and they 
do have the money to go with another system so why don't they just 
do it and in so doing would help build a network of competition for 
Microsoft, why should us commoners have to suffer at some nerds 
expense? I just don't understand why if someone doesn't like a 
product instead of saying one company is all wrong they just don't 
find another brand to use and keep their big fat mouths shut! Why 
don't they go buy Macs' and use that system? Personally I don't like 
Navigator, I found it to be not! user friendly like windows is and 
it got uninstalled from my computer in nothing flat!
    The settlement that the DOJ agreed to should be the final thing 
and these other AG's should be told to deal with it and quit acting 
like they are ``God's gift to the earth and know what everyone 
wants'' they don't! they just want money to spend on some pet 
project that won't get financed without the Microsoft money.
    Thanks for listening to me vent.
    [email protected]



MTC-00007933

From: Gerald Weston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:32am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    Its time that this thing was ended. It should never have 
started. This is nothing more than an example of how ``bought and 
paid for'' senators (i.e. Orin Hatch) are brought into the 
competitive arena to give a competitive advantage to companies that 
cannot succeed on their own. Market forces will find the proper 
balance if everybody leaves them alone. Microsoft does not have any 
sort of the competitive edge that IBM did with the mag-card 
typewriter.



MTC-00007934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS ANTITRUST CASE AND THE SETTLEMENT 
SEEMS FAIR. IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO END THIS CASE AND MOVE 
FORWARD INTO A POSITIVE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT.
    INGEBORG TESSNER



MTC-00007935

From: Joseph Wages
To: DOJ Microsoft
Date: 1/3/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney settlement brings this matter to a close as fairly as 
can be expected after all the effort that went into the trial Anti-
trust laws are for the benefit of the consumer not competitors. This 
settlement should be approved so we can get on with the business of 
technology.
    Joseph E. Wages
    1813 Cliffside Drive
    Pfafftown NC 27040

[[Page 24968]]



MTC-00007936

From: William Oneil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir: I'm glad you settled the Microsoft case. Its been a major 
drag on the economy, in my opinion one of the main causes of the 
recession we're in. I'm also glad you did not require Microsoft to 
leave a lot of programs out of windows. Its already hard enough to 
use, without having a bunch of restrictions on including programs 
that will make users lives easier.
    Bill ONeil
    [email protected]



MTC-00007937

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel Microsoft as a company has gone through enough. Now it is 
time for the Government and States to settle this case and let Bill 
Gates get back to business. 911 proved to the world that as a people 
we can come together regardless of our differences and get the job 
done, now is the time to do so in this case. Lets think of all the 
contributions Microsoft has made to the economy and the computing 
industry and let these guys and gals get back to work and make the 
USA even stronger.



MTC-00007938

From: visionmt@ mail.msy.bell south.net@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
    It is time for the Microsoft vs. DOJ litigation to end. In the 
best interest of our free enterprise system, and therefore America, 
the settlement in the Microsoft case must be accepted. What if 
Microsoft existed in another country? How dissimilar would our 
economic independance be if we were in a position in software 
capabilities as we are in our energy situation to the ``Oil 
Cartel?'' How much of a joke would it be if we tried to ``rein in'' 
a ``software cartel'' from another country?
    It's time to end this silliness!
    Cordially yours,
    Kenneth R. Parker



MTC-00007939

From: Wagner, Joyce, CIV, 164 CEGS, DE
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What a shame the government has spent so much time and money to 
go after a company that has an operating system that just ``can't be 
beat''. If there is a better option from any other company, let 
``them'' come up with a marketing strategy and present it to the 
public just as Microsoft has done.
    Bill Gates started this company with nothing--free enterprise at 
it's finest! Let all the other Bill Gates comes forward if they have 
something better to offer--until then, the government needs to get 
out of the business of running Microsoft's business and wasting 
taxpayers money.
    I wonder how many of these people who are so against Microsoft 
have uninstalled the Windows system from their computer and 
installed another operating system--
    Joyce B. Wagner
    [email protected]



MTC-00007940

From: R Thomsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE be done with this stupid and harrassing suit against 
Microsoft. This country is based on initiative and free enterprise. 
Because one firm is able to supply what the public wants is no 
excuse for the competition to run to the Govt. and cry unfair. Let 
them instead improve their products and compete. A settlement has 
been reached, let it be so.
    Roy A. Thomsen



MTC-00007941

From: Dorothy MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to setle this. I am for the settlement aggreement.
    Dorothy MacDonald



MTC-00007942

From: Joe Giunta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An agreement has been reached that exceeds what the Appellate 
court had mandated. It is time for the federal and state governments 
to resolve this conflict that has actually harmed many more people 
than it ever intended to help.



MTC-00007943

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:40am
Subject: (no subject)
    I am in favor of the settlement.



MTC-00007944

From: liles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would certainly support the earliest settlement of the case 
against Microsoft. In the light of current economic conditions the 
advantages that Microsoft had in the past have largely evaporated. 
Let's get back to business!! Microsoft is a very valuable asset in 
our economy and the continued uncertainty in the markets need a 
settlement very important.
    Jerry B Liles
    1009 East Sixth
    Alice, Texas 78332



MTC-00007945

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: I am completely in agreement with a swift and 
immediate settlement of this case. Marcia Lichti



MTC-00007946

From: dan heines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45am
    Dear DOJ--I understand that you are interested in comment from 
the public re Microsoft. I say, enough is enough. Let them go back 
providing great products. You and the various States get off their 
back. I hope you have more important and productive things to do.
    Yours truly,
    Dan K. Heines



MTC-00007947

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    Absolutely this settlement should be made!!! It should never 
have even been brought in the first place. This country is great 
because of innovative people like Bill Gates. I can't believe that 
our justice system allowed it to go on this long. When we attack our 
own is it any wonder that fools like Ben Laden and his followers 
think they can?



MTC-00007948

From: Henry Harriss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:46am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    All charges and suits against Microsoft should be immediately 
dropped. Such a fragrant and evil interference with the free 
economic system and against free enterprise is having terrible 
consequences for Microsoft, the consumers, the industry, the 
shareholders and this country. Let the market rule. Otherwise, our 
country suffers except for a few greedy lawyers and state attorney 
generals.
    H. Harriss



MTC-00007949

From: Jonas Poblador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer and consumer, I strongly agree that the 
currently settlement is fair. The CONTRACTS issue has been resolved 
and I with that, it would be nice if the same rule will apply to 
every other industry and sector.
    The right to innovate and add new features in product is an all 
American right. This bundling or packaging marketing scheme is 
currently well and alive across all sectors of American business. 
The bundling of CD/stereos & air-conditioning in the car industry 
worked well for everybody. I also do not believe that the govt 
should protect companies like SUN, ORACLE and AOL. These companies 
are big enough to compete. They should come up with new ideas 
inorder to survive. SUN, ORACLE and AOL has been the leader in thier 
respective market for a number of years--they should be inovative to 
stay ahead. They should also be more realistic in thier pricing to 
keep thier leadership. The Govt should just let the market dectate 
thier faith. We should avoid the protectionism mentally that is 
adopted by our EUROPEAN freinds because they only

[[Page 24969]]

work in the short term. I feel that the current DOJ team is fair and 
more up to date on current issues that the previous team.
    regards,
    Jonas Poblador



MTC-00007950

From: Jerry C. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/2/02
    Dear Sir:
    I have recently purchased a home computer with Microsoft Windows 
XP Home Edition operating system preinstalled.
    First, I found that as part of the user's agreement, I had to 
agree to allow Microsoft to upgrade the operating system and install 
supplemental software while I worked on the internet. By using this 
approach to maintaining the operating system, I will not be able to 
apply fixes and upgrades myself if I decide not to use the internet. 
In addition, I do not want Microsoft determining how I use the 
internet. Finally, no one has been able to explain what types of 
supplemental software Microsoft plans to install.
    Secondly, I found that other Microsoft programs that came pre-
installed on this computer also set up communication links with 
other remote computers, which I can only assume are Microsoft 
computers. I have no idea what types of information is being 
transmitted while these links are open.
    Thirdly, I found that I was not provided with an original copy 
of the operating system on a CD for me to use to restore the system 
if I have problems or to restore files if they become corrupted. 
Instead I am required to provide space on my hard drive for a backup 
copy of the operating system that they can use to restore my 
operating system if I have any problems. This is a poor strategy to 
system recovery, because I cannot do normal system maintenance 
myself. And, if I have a hard drive failure, I have to buy a new 
hard drive with an operating system already installed, where I 
should have the option of replacing the hard drive myself and using 
the CD to restore the operating system.
    I believe that Microsoft is using unfair business practices by 
depriving me of my right to maintain my own computer if I so desire, 
and by transmitting information from my computer where I have no 
idea what the information is. I also believe that Microsoft is 
infringing on my right to use the internet and my computer as I 
wish..
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Johnson



MTC-00007951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not understand all ligality about this subject. This case 
is going on for more than 4 years. I am sure by this time our 
justice dept. must have heard from both side all sorts of argument & 
evidence, and collected lots of evidence of their own. Enough is 
enough. It is time to stop appeals after appeals & make final 
decision once & for all, but fare to all parties.



MTC-00007952

From: Gary Masterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame:
    I have been working in the computing industry since my 
graduation from college in 1972, practically 30 years. From my 
vantage point, Microsoft Corporation has been a primary player in 
revolutionizing the way computing is done. They have been the 
catalyst for producing less costly operating systems and software so 
that today virtually any home owner can own and operate a computer. 
This would have been financially impossible not too many years ago.
    For the community of users who have come to rely on Microsoft, 
the case that the justice department has brought against them is a 
true misuse of justice. Microsoft has made things better for the 
business community, better for the home owner, improved the quality 
of programs available, provided software and support at reasonable 
prices (unheard of low prices compared to where the industry was 20 
years ago), and spawned many, many other businesses. It is an 
outrage that the US Government would use our tax dollars to 
prosecute a company that has done so much. I urge that this case be 
settled in the most expeditious manner possible. Thank you.
    Gary Masterson
    Director of Marine Simulation
    Buffalo Computer Graphics
    3741 Lake Shore Road
    Blasdell, NY 14219
    Phone: 716-822-8668
    Fax: 716-822-2730
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00007953

From: Ventura, Albert Arthur (Al)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom it may concern
    Please be advised that I feel as do many of my co workers do 
that the suit against Microsoft should be finished by forcing the 
remaining 9 States that have not settled to come to some type of 
agreement with Microsoft. The US taxpayer has had enough time wasted 
on this suit and wants it over with. Also it is my opinion that the 
US Judicial System should show more restraint of actions against 
Microsoft in the future because its certainly starting to look like 
their singling out one corporation even though that corporation has 
done so much to provide increased productivity applications not only 
for the United States Corporations but for Corporations around the 
World.
    Thank You
    Albert Ventura
    Lucent Technologies
    Technical Support Services
    3G-UMTS Data Provisioning



MTC-00007954

From: Kris Ruckman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to offer my thoughts on the microsoft settlement. I 
work for one of the big 5 consulting firms where I help my clients 
utilize many of microsoft's products as well as products of their 
competitors (sun microsystems, oracle, etc.). My experience with 
microsoft's product suite is that they develop world class software. 
Their software is consistently well developed and integrated and 
offers my clients a very good solution.
    Their products have increased in functionality and usability 
while consistently being competitively priced, a compelling 
combination for any business. Microsoft has consistently beaten the 
competition in delivering software that is useful, price competitive 
and well integrated. Sun, Oracle and others have good products, but 
their claim Microsoft that has some monopoly on the market or 
somehow forces companies to use their products is completely wrong. 
My clients choose Microsoft products because they routinely beat the 
competition in functionality, integration and price. In the ultra-
competitive software industry, a monopoly simply does not exist.
    While I do not agree with the majority of the rulings in the 
settlement, namely that microsoft operated as a monopoly and stifled 
competition, it is now time to settle this case. Microsoft needs to 
get back to the business of developing world-class software that 
meets the needs of companies. I encourage everyone to settle this 
quickly and fairly so we can all get back to business.
    Regards,
    Kris Ruckman



MTC-00007955

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As an American citizen and registered voter, I beg you to accept 
the settlement against Microsoft. For the benefit of our economy and 
our future, let's move forward as a nation healing it's wounds. 
Thank you.
    Ana Crafton
    701 Garlyn Ct
    Saint Louis, MO 63123



MTC-00007956

From: J. Drew Dials
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a technology professional, I've been following the Microsoft/
DOJ case from the beginning. It is my opinion that these remaining 
unsettled states do not have the consumers best interest in mind at 
all. These states are being influenced by the companies within them 
that are unable to compete with Microsoft solely on a product 
comparison basis. As a software developer, I have enjoyed the 
benefits that Microsoft has built into their developement platforms 
and technologies for a few years now. These technologies and 
accompanying support, documentation, user communities, etc. are what 
make Microsoft stand above the rest. These features are what enable 
Microsoft to win business on many fronts. These features are what 
draws the consumer to the

[[Page 24970]]

Microsoft platform. And these features are what these other 
``unsettled'' companies refuse to compete with. Now, instead of 
making a comparable product or even better product that the consumer 
would readily embrace, they are attempting to use government to 
fight their battles for them. If these companies were making these 
high quality products to compete with the Microsoft platform, then 
this case would not even exist and we would not have spent millions 
of taxpayers dollars in an attempt to stunt Microsoft's growth. And 
this is for the consumer? I think it would be a crime and a shame 
for this government to play favorites to a few companies because 
they can't compete in this highly competitive economy and I hope the 
DOJ feels the same.
    Thank you,
    Jon Drew Dials



MTC-00007957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time for this to be over! The tax payers have 
spent enough chasing a vendetta type lawsuit with the chance to put 
some money in your pockets. Admit it States Attorneys!
    Bill Gates simply has a superior product and is much smarter 
than you!
    M.P.Panter



MTC-00007958

From: Tim Schuele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US Government has wasted enough time and money pursuing 
Microsoft. I wholey support the settlement. This matter should be 
put to rest as soon as possible.
    Thank you
    Tim Schuele



MTC-00007959

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion Microsoft is being punished for its innovations 
and vision for the future. I am not a computer genius. I only 
perform simple tasks on the computer by using Windows and Microsoft 
Word and Excell. That is it. Vey simplistic tasks.
    So, Justice Department give these people compliments. Their 
competitors have not been able to develop software as easy to use as 
Microsoft.
    Regards,
    Maria Kuechmann



MTC-00007960

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Tunney Act
    I believe that the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
government to be a fair settlement for all concerned. Please settle 
this action quickly to allow Microsoft to continue doing its job 
with its greatest creativity for its users and profit to its 
shareholders.
    Thank you for your consideration, Lois Ogburn, Microsoft 
shareholder



MTC-00007961

From: neh--teh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft case shold be settled with no further litigation. 
The settlement is more than fair to all parties involved. Continued 
litigation will only benefit an extremely few wealthy corporations. 
Let this great American economy get on with innovation which can 
only benefit the economies of the world.



MTC-00007962

From: Robert Krance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Dept of Justice settlement and the appeal put 
forth by a number of states to further punish and limit the company, 
I wish to say that these efforts to control Microsoft will nothing 
to help the individual end user.
    I have been using computers to perform my occupation and 
personal responsibilities for the past 20 years. I am not literate 
in computer technology but consider myself reasonably competent in 
using software for word-processing, spreadsheet, and database 
applications. I remember beginning with DOS and working with 
WordPerfect, Lotus, Quattro, etc. Attempting to integrate operating 
systems and software, no matter whose, was always a frustrating and 
non-productive process. I never want to return to that situation 
again.
    Frankly, I still spend too much of my time trying to make 
hardware, software and operating systems compliant with each other. 
Innovation is a dirty concept when it means frustration, wasted 
time, and in the end a soup of diverse components that don't work 
together on my machine much less work with other users. This is what 
we face if the states persist in their attempt to punish and 
ultimately limit Microsoft. I would mush prefer seeing Microsoft 
being held accountable for compatibility issues with their operating 
system and the multiple software and hardware applications that 
require it.
    It seems to me that in real dollars the cost of computing has 
come down exponentially in the twenty years I have been doing this. 
We must owe something to Microsoft, Intel, IBM and a number of 
others. Left to its own elitist approach (disguised as an advocate 
for the common man, remember the Ridley Scott commercial during the 
Super Bowl), Macintosh would cost thousands of dollars more today. 
In my first attempts at computing, I bought DOS and an IBM-based 
system, simply because it cost half as much as Macintosh. Back then 
DOS and the Intel-IBM configuration were not equal to Macintosh, but 
the cost of the latter was prohibitive for many of us.
    Oracle and Sun are doing just fine, thank you. They've never 
approached the individual end user to provide a product. If allowed 
to foul up the current computing environment, these companies will 
price millions of us out of computing, just as Macintosh did. The 
Internet would remain a perk for academics and industry. Please 
don't kill the goose. Make MIcrosoft even more responsive to end 
users.
    Robert Krance
    13 Clear Springs Court
    Sugar Land, TX
    77479
    [email protected]



MTC-00007963

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the settlement as set forth by the government and 
other states. Further litigation will not have a positive effect on 
the general public; it will merely fatten the purses of the 
attorneys involved.
    The fact is that the majority of folks who purchase new 
computers (including ourselves) prefer the Microsoft operating 
system. If Microsoft 98 had not been preloaded on our computer, we 
would have purchased and installed it.
    Let the settlement stand.
    Connie & Roger Larson
    PO Box 648
    Auburn, WA 98071



MTC-00007964

From: James E Bauer, MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the suggested settlement is fair to all parties, and I 
also believe that our country has suffered and will continue to 
suffer until the settlement is effected. Let us not punish success 
in the marketplace.
    Microsoft has led the way in making America the technology 
capital of the world. Let's get on with the future!



MTC-00007965

From: John Folino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:06am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I HAVE USED MICROSOFT PRODUCTS FOR YEARS AND AM VERY HAPPY WITH 
THEM. I PAID A PRICE THAT WAS SATISFACTORY TO ME AND HAVE SAVED 
THOUSAND OF MAN HOURS FOR MY BUSINESS.
    I AM A HAPPY CAMPER.
    SINCERELY,
    JOHN F. FOLINO
    CEO AMERICAN TRANSMISSIONS, INC.



MTC-00007966

From: johnny sterneker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to close the case against Microsoft. In my opinion, 
the whole power and majesty of the U.S. Government was brought to 
bear against an American Corporation in very questionable 
cicumstances!
    Get it overwith, NOW!

[[Page 24971]]



MTC-00007968

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Enough with these continuing litigation talks! I cannot see how 
this helps the American consumer at all. Microsoft has been 
chastened, and I assume there are now ``firewalls'' in place to 
prevent abuse in the future. We tout a free enterprise system in 
this country, so long as certain 'special interests' are not 
offended, and so long as one innovator does not become too 
successful. Tell me, how does the innovator stop him/herself from 
innovating? That is what built and continues to build our country.
    I believe that Microsoft like them or not, has been more a 
benefit to the consumer than a hinderance. In our system, if there 
were a better, more efficient product available, people would flock 
to it. So, now that Microsoft has been exposed (as the greatest 
innovator) and slowed down, where are all these other great products 
from the competitors, which are going to better all of our lives?
    Continuing litigation smacks of a few more hangers on (states) 
attempting to draw freely from an entity they had nothing to do with 
creating, and most certainly have benefited from on an ongoing basis 
(taxes on many Microsoft sales for example).
    The settlement is tough and fair! Let's all get on with our 
lives. I for one hope that Microsoft continues to find the incentive 
to innovate.
    Ron Mondillo



MTC-00007969

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:07am
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I wish to state my views on the Microwave settlement and they 
will be short but they fairly represent my position on this matter. 
I am a small business owner that works from my home as a home 
builder in North Carolina with 30 years of building experience. I 
graduated with a degree in Chemistry from Elon College (now Elon 
University) and started my building career before the computer 
revolution began. Slide rules, ledger paper, and hand written checks 
were the order of the day.
    I recognized that the computer revolution was going to leave me 
behind if I did not get on board. So I computerized my business in 
1983 and immediately found that I could multiply my efforts with 
technology in lieu of manpower. As a self taught computer person I 
cannot continue compete in the building business without the 
benefits of quality and compressively designed software and 
compatible hardware. The Microsoft windows software and similar 
programs are essential to the success of my business and to so many 
more of the baby boomers trying to compete with the more computer 
literate recent graduates of today.
    I worry that this litigation would reduce the gains of Microsoft 
technology to another VHS/BETA war that some win and some will loose 
out and who is looking out for the loosers. Please allow this great 
innovative company to settle the litigation and let the rest of us 
continue to operate our businesses with the best available choices 
that we can find. If Microsoft's product did not work they would not 
be selling them the way that they are. This country cannot continue 
bust up good companies for the sake of a chance on new upstarts that 
may or may not workout.
    The past histories of the breakup of AT&T and the cell service 
divisions within cities is all of the proof that our Justice 
Department should stay out of Corporate America. The Justice 
Department must have better things to do that screw up hard work of 
so many small business people.
    Thanks for reading my views and lets get on with the business of 
being cooperative Americans, we all have much to celebrate and with 
which to be proud.
    Sincerely,
    Chester W. Burgess
    Burgess Construction Co.



MTC-00007970

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is past time for this settlement, which is fair to all, to be 
accepted and finalized !!!! Let's now put it to bed. George 
Chironis, of Melville, NY, 11747



MTC-00007971

From: Melvin C. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I believe the settlement between the US Dept of Justice and 
Microsoft is fair and should be finalized. I feel the United States 
is fortunate to have Microsoft as a company. I trust Microsoft 100% 
more than any of the media or politicians.
    Mel
    Melvin C. & Lillian H. Phillips [757-566-4578]
    7277 Osprey Drive, Lanexa, VA 23089-9410
    E-Mail: [email protected] or [email protected]



MTC-00007972

From: Anthony Kozojed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    My husband and I have used microsoft along with Netscape 
Navigator and AOL since 1994. We are both over 60 and have time to 
use the computer at home. We can see no possible reason to sue 
Microsoft when we purchased our computer, we added Microsoft Windows 
95 by our choice and since we live in far Northern Minnesota there 
was no internet service available except through Netscape Navigator 
from Radio Shack, since then a local phone company and cable company 
have started internet service. We use the ``E'' symbol from 
Microsoft to connect to the ebay site, the light house from Netscape 
for our family history site, and man from AOL to talk to family and 
friend and email. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
    Sharon @ Anthony Kozojed



MTC-00007973

From: Ted Staplin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the settlement agreed to by Microsoft, the 
government and participating states should be enacted.
    I am most concerned about spending tax payers dollars pursuing 
legal action that is not in the taxpayers best interest.
    I have worked in the computer business my entire career (37 
years),
    I have never worked for Microsoft and in fact have worked for 
their competitors.
    It is my belief that they have made a significant contribution 
to the USA economy and in particular to advancing Computer 
technology. The consumer has directly benefited from this in being 
able to buy computer technology that has advanced significantly 
during my career, at a fraction of the cost.
    Sincerely
    Ted Staplin
    104 Garrison Road
    Chelmsford, MA 01824



MTC-00007974

From: J Houston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:11am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Get off Microsoft's back. Without its so called monopoly we 
still be figuring change at the cashier line.
    Jesse Houston



MTC-00007975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The Microsoft settlement case should be settled without further 
litigation. I see little need to prolong this case. The current 
provisions are fair for all parties. The interests of the American 
people are better served with less litigation and more innovation.



MTC-00007976

From: Curt Mackie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a resident of the State of Iowa. I am very disappointed 
that our Attorney General continues on what I believe to be a 
``witch hunt'' with regards to Microsoft and its business practices. 
I have owned personal computers since 1983. I have had many 
opportunities in the past and currently to purchase other software, 
both operating systems and application programs. I have elected to 
run Microsoft Windows and Office as my major production package 
after trying several others that I have purchased and currently 
still own. (Red Hat Linux, IBM OS2, and BEOS are examples of the 
operation systems currently available to anyone who wants them. Also 
there are too many

[[Page 24972]]

application programs available to list them all, however I will 
mention Lotus 123. I can remember when it was the only spreadsheet 
available and it cost several hundreds of dollars. And, it was copy 
protected to boot. So heaven help you if you lost or damaged your 
disk! I am very happy that Microsoft makes available the products 
that they do. I am free to chose to purchase them or not. When 
something better comes down the road I will make that decision also.
    I think we should put this mess behind us. Let Microsoft do 
business. Let its competitors come up with better products and we 
will purchase them. I am a home user. Thank you for listening.
    Curt Mackie
    [email protected]
    515-981-0720 cell 515-779-1300



MTC-00007977

From: Win Bartsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to inform you that I am in favor of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation. Since I never agreed with any 
part of the governments case, I am in favor of ending the issue as 
quickly as possible.
    Mr. Win Bartsch
    1850 Beans Bight Rd. NE
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    98110



MTC-00007978

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:17am
Subject: SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT
    DEAR SIR,
    I WILL MAKE THE COMMENT BRIEF AND TO THE POINT. I FEEL, IT WOULD 
BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY TO CLOSE THE ISSUE WITH 
MICROSOFT AND MOVE FORWARD. I SEEMS THAT ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN 
DISCUSSED & NOW IT IS TIME TO FOCUS ON THE FUTURE. KEEP THE 
INNOVATIVE MICROSOFT AS IT WAS PRIOR TO THE LAWSUITS & DO NOT BREAK 
UP THE COMPANY! THIS ENTIRE PROCESS HAS BEEN A NEGITIVE FOR OUR 
ECONOMY! PLEASE SETTLE THIS ISSUE NOW!
    JOHN MAJOR



MTC-00007979

From: Lovelace Rucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to advise that as a consumer I am satisfied with the 
Microsoft Settlement as it now stands. We are tired of always trying 
to satisfy the jealous public interest people. We are for free 
enterprise and capitalism. The size of the company makes no 
difference as the cream always rises to the top. Our government 
needs to get on with their own business and let ALL the cream risers 
keep supplying consumers with their tremendous products and new 
innovations. Micro- soft is a wonderful example of USA spirit in 
capitalism and the freedom to be successful in the Land Of The Free.



MTC-00007980

From: DCarpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Congrats doj the settlement is OK for me
    Love Dave



MTC-00007981

From: paul stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:21am
Subject: Good Morning,
    Good Morning,
    As a consumer using Windows, I have never been injured from its 
use. I find the software to be very productive. The government is 
wasting tax payer money pursing this matter. The original issue is 
mute by the march of technology.
    Sincerely,
    Paul K. Stout
    Training Coordinator
    ASTD Member
    [email protected]



MTC-00007982

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ:
    I have continued to believe that the case against Microsoft has 
been carried too far. It is important not to stifle innovation. I 
have been retired for 11 years and my former company still benefits 
from the 17 years of protection that has been provided for the 
patents under my name.
    One of the issues in the Microsoft case revolves around the 
browser. I have always had Netscape as my browser and in the 4.5 and 
6.2 versions they are just as all consuming as Micosoft in their 
service.
    It seems to me that no one has gained in this litigation, 
especially because it has been dragged out so long. Let's put this 
thing to rest once and for all. It was my understanding that a 
settlement had been worked out but some States have continued to 
keep the case going. I have already expressed disappointment that my 
home state of Florida is one of the procrastinators. I have also 
been been disturbed at the way the DOJ has handled the case. The 
fairest and most sensible thing for all concerned is to end it once 
and for all. Charles W. Lehnert, retiree and consultant.



MTC-00007983

From: Tyler, Joanna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:26am
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is in the public 
interest. I believe that Microsoft has not engaged in monopolistic 
practices; that the company should have never been sued; and now a 
settlement should occur--closing this case forever.
    Joanna Tyler, Ph.D., M.B.A.
    Research Director
    Northrop Grumman Information Technology Health Solutions and 
Services
    1700 Reseach Blvd., Suite 400
    Rockville, MD 20850
    301-294-5643
    301-294-5401
    [email protected]



MTC-00007984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read and followed the case on and off through the months. 
I have not read the entire proposed settlement but I will give you 
my two thoughts on the matter for starters.
    - I believe that it is a good thing for our lives, to keep 
microsoft together, one company, doing the many things that they do 
best. And that dividing the company in any degree, would be a 
solution that just pleases certain people, but does not solve 
anything and probably makes it worse.
    - However, I agree with Apple computer spokespeople 100%, that 
microsoft should not be allowed to pay fees to the court, by 
flooding the education market ``schools, libraries, etc.'', with 
``free'' computers, in essence, doing something they have not been 
able to do through sales, which is to infringe on that market. 
Allowing them to do so, would tie schools into using their software, 
their upgrades, for decades, and would further empower them as a 
monopoly, taking away from the market power of competitive hardware 
and software companies, like Apple, and Sun.



MTC-00007985

From: Gary H. Minar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's be serious about what is happening. MS Corp. has created 
more beneficial products that have made the world become better 
'connected, enhanced how we commuicate, improved business 
productivity, improved Gov't efficiency, among others. Why is MS 
being punished for such never-before seen creativity? It is UNJUST. 
MS should be applauded at every opportunity. They have done more for 
human kind thru computer technology than anyone else I know.
    05) 688-7957, FAX: 693-8618, Solvang, CA



MTC-00007986

From: Ann Keefe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this suit with Microsoft so the country can move 
ahead. I believe the uncertainty about the outcome has played a 
tremendous roll in the stock markets inability to sustain a major 
rally. The country needs some good news right now, especially with 
our service men & women overseas and others here still cleaning up 
ground zero.
    Thank you,
    Ann Keefe, Concerned Citizen



MTC-00007987

From: Stewart.Menking@relian cenational.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24973]]

    Microsoft created an industry that revolutionzed how we work and 
play. The cost of their products goes down as their products 
improve. And when they gave something away for free, a few big 
companies started to scream. I have yet to understand how this has 
hurt me or any other consumer.
    This case should be put into the history books as soon as 
possible.



MTC-00007988

From: Davis, Suzanne
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to put this issue to rest and proceed with the agreed 
upon settlement. As a business user and a personal user I have 
always believed that all end users would not be where we are today 
without the efforts and uniqueness of Microsoft development. I'm not 
a lawyer so it is possible that Microsoft did go over the legal line 
with regards to marketing and sales efforts, but competition 
certainly did not have these same tools to offer. I don't believe 
that this suit was fair in the first place and it was a ``marketing 
tool'' used by competitors to save their businesses and ``award'' 
them for not being able to fairly compete with Microsoft. Do not 
waste my tax money on any more proceedings that do not result in 
this settlement being completed. The lawyers have had a chance to 
earn their fees. Our economy and international business communities 
need to get back on track.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my feelings.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanne Davis
    Information Manager



MTC-00007989

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen
    It is my view that the Microsoft Settlement is fair and 
reasonable and should be concluded without further litigation or 
delay
    John G. Robinson
    49 Bay Shore Drive
    Plymouth, MA 02360



MTC-00007990

From: linnco .
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my strong opinion that this case be 
settled once and for all. Please do not allow business competitors 
to derail the settlement for their own gain. SETTLE THIS CASE! The 
economy needs this to be finalized.



MTC-00007991

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32am
Subject: microsoft setlement
    The settlement the government has reached with Microsoft is more 
than fair for the Government. I happen to believe that this suit 
should not have been brought in the first place. Settle it and get 
it over.
    Jerry Simmons



MTC-00007992

From: Mike Gnadt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern/DOJ:
    I am the owner of a small business that has been using Microsoft 
products for over a decade. During this period, I have found the 
pricing, after-sales support and user friendliness to be superior to 
other products that we have tried.
    In addition, the availability of an extensive variety of 
different products and business tools that are designed to run on 
the Windows operating system has enabled me to be more productive at 
a cost that is affordable. Consequently, I have been able to reduce 
the cost of doing business and pass some of savings on to my 
employees in the form of higher salaries.
    I have had a significant share of my own personal retirement 
funds invested in stocks like Microsoft and other related companies 
that rely on the business generated by Microsoft. Since the DOJ 
initiated the litigation with Microsoft, I have watched my 
retirement funds retreat to lower valuations. It is my sincere 
belief that this litigation, while being extremely expensive and 
unproductive, it is not in the best interests of the American 
consumer. Additionally, the cost to the economy in general is too 
much to sacrifice for a litigation with such little merit. 
Basically, I do not believe that the Government has demonstrated 
that Microsoft has damaged the consumer; and, therefore, Microsoft 
should not be forced to divert any more financial and intellectual 
resources to its defense.
    Very sincerely,
    Myron A. Gnadt



MTC-00007993

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:33am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I'm very much in favor of the Microsoft Settlement, and believe 
it's in the best interest of the Country to get this settled now. 
The economy will suffer if this settlement is not honored.
    [email protected].



MTC-00007994

From: El Sawy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:34am
Subject: Common Sense
    Can good common sense please prevail? Our portfolios have been 
devastated ever since the Department of Justice started taking 
creative US technology to court.
    Soraya El Sawy



MTC-00007995

From: David G Marek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not one accustomed to writing letters to the DOJ. However, 
I believe it is time that we put the entire Microsoft fiasco behind 
us. I look at what Microsoft has given us in terms of Operating 
System, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentation Software, 
Database, etc. and am amazed of the seamless interfaces between 
these products. I am tired of special interest groups trying to 
manupulate government for their own interests. It is time to move 
on. As a government, with terrorism, recession, etc. facing us, we 
have much better places to spend our time and money. The only thing 
this continued case is doing is putting a lot of lawyers to work.
    david g marek



MTC-00007996

From: Betty Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Further litigation is unnecessary, you should settle now ! It is 
in the best economic interest of all concerned, especially the 
consumers. SETTLE!!!!!!
    Betty Z. Thompson



MTC-00007997

From: Blondin, John Q (SEATTLE SE/TE/ZQ 335)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    This suit has drained this country for far too long both 
financially and mentally. It is time to wrap up and move on. 
Microsoft has created the standard for computer usage in the world. 
It has become much like the English language, the common language of 
business and air traffic and tourism. It enables the world to 
function much better than it would with many computer languages. It 
has created a platform from which many others can build and sell 
products further enabling us all to communicate and do business. The 
US Govt is wasting its time and taxpayer dollars trying to hamstring 
a national treasure at the request of its competitors. I thought 
this country was about competition.
    The US Govt should spend even a fraction of this effort on doing 
something about airport screening. Since 9/11 almost nothing has 
been done. Nationalize the job and get QUALIFIED US CITIZENS to work 
there. Stop just talking.
    John Q. Blondin; Seattle, WA., 98136



MTC-00007998

From: Jumana Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement with Microsoft. Do not let 
Microsoft's competitors dictate what will only benefit them in this 
settlement. The consumers and the economy need this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jumana S. Scoggins



MTC-00007999

From: Joe Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,

[[Page 24974]]

    I am writing to voice my support for the settlement with 
Microsoft. I think this lawsuit has been a travesty of justice from 
the beginning. The lawsuit does not stem from consumer harm but from 
the mindless ambition of the Clinton administration and the 
corruptness of Janet Reno. The state attorney generals have proven 
to be nothing but greedy opportunists who have no regard for the 
well being of their citizens, many of whom are Microsoft or other 
technology stock investors. The supposed ``harm'' that Microsoft has 
caused has only been noted by one group, the competitors of 
Microsoft. The lawsuit against Microsoft, on the other hand, has 
created real harm to our entire country. The stock market has been 
decimated, wrecking retirement accounts, college savings accounts 
and all other investment vehicles. The snowball effect of the stock 
market decline has brought our entire economy to its knees, and is 
the true reason our country is in a recession today. It is time to 
put this entire affair behind us by settling this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Joe W. Taylor, II
    160 Willow Bend Court
    Bowling Green, KY 42104



MTC-00008000

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Tell the government to go after bin Ladin, Kadafi and all the 
other government terrorist that are right here in the U.S. with the 
same zeal that they are going after Microsoft and maybe we wouldn't 
be in the predicament that we???re in now.



MTC-00008001

From: e baxter lemmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    APPRVE THE SETTLEMENT! END THE LITIGATION!
    E. BAXTER LEMMOND
    2711 BROOKWOOD ROAD
    RICHMOND; VIRGINIA, 23235



MTC-00008002

From: bdkittley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:47am
Subject: Observations about case & Microsoft business practices
    I think that the original motives of DOJ in bringing the lawsuit 
were misplaced. Fear it was punishment, because Microsoft no longer 
wanted to ``cooperate'' with other US agencies demands for access to 
systems. Microsoft writes good software, but some of the things that 
the systems ``enable'' are regularly abused by third party software. 
This is why the OS is always locking up.
    Financially punitive remedys will solve nothing. This said, ``It 
would be a mistake to allow Microsoft to continue to extend the 
standards to insure incompatibility with all other OS's''. This 
practice cost the government and consumers far too much, and 
contributes little new value. Please, bias this settlement to focus 
open standards and on building a better mouse trap, not another 
marketing scam.
    Settle this thing, and get on with business.
    Dave Kittley
    P.O. Box 203
    Rule, TX 79547
    [email protected]



MTC-00008003

From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
    Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..? 
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...? 
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money 
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to 
adults who are supposedly smart.
    STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to 
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the 
way the marketplace works.
    Pierre Legrand
    4137 Broussard Street
    Baton Rouge, La. 70808
    225-924-6661



MTC-00008004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is tough, fair and just. The 
vast majority of the people in the nation believe the antitrust case 
should be settled now and we should move on!
    Special interests should NOT be allowed to drag this thing out. 
Technology is our strong suit from a business and innovation 
viewpoint. It drives our economy. It should not be hampered by undue 
preoccupation with fighting a case that has already been fairly 
decided.



MTC-00008005

From: Lauren Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I strongly support settling the Microsoft case. Too much time 
and effort has been wasted on this already. It is time to let a 
company that has brought good products to the American public get on 
with business. By the way, I have no relationship with Microsoft 
other than a small investment in their stock.
    Lauren Friedman



MTC-00008006

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The nine states that have refused the federal goxernment's 
settlement with Microsoft are trying to make Microsoft share holders 
pay for theirfoolish spending.



MTC-00008007

From: Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement ----- Original Message -----
From: ``Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 9:48 
AM
Subject: Stop attacking one of the engines of our Growth...
    Sheesh will you people find something more constructive to do..? 
Like maybe find the people responsible for killing so many of us...? 
That might be a bit more useful than going around extorting money 
from AMERICAN corps. Im embarrassed that I have to say that to 
adults who are supposedly smart.
    STOP ALL ACTION AGAINST MICROSOFT NOW. Allow the market place to 
work...its impossible for anyone except the government to break the 
way the marketplace works.
    Pierre Legrand
    4137 Broussard Street
    Baton Rouge, La. 70808 225-924-6661



MTC-00008008

From: McCauley, John Joseph Jr. (091)AMSTA-AR-WEA(093)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Settle the Damn Case, for the life of me I still can't figure 
out how it got to Court in the first place. Stop wasting money and 
time on this situation. It is a shame that with Real Estate Rip 
Off's, Insurance Rip Off's, Health Care Rip Off's and yes the 
Attorney Fee rip Off's the Government has the time and the money to 
waste to continue with this.
    John McCauley
    4123 Conashaugh Lakes
    Milford, Pa.18337



MTC-00008009

From: Robert MacCallum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please bring this settlement to a close. It is my personal 
opinion that the stock market drop had its beginnings in the 
Microsoft case brought by the DOJ. Whether it really did, or not, it 
seems that dragging out this settlement can do nothing to help the 
economy get going again.
    Your truly, Robert W. MacCallum
    Travelers Rest, SC.



MTC-00008010

From: Mike and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:50am
Subject: This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement:
    This is to submit my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement:
    1. It is encouraging that the justice department was able to 
save the tax payers money by allowing Netscape to write/dictate the 
complaint. They didn't charge us for that, did they?

[[Page 24975]]

    2. I was much encouraged that the word monopoly was used so 
frequently in the complaint. I am sure that by using the word so 
frequently it must be true.
    3. Now that you have used millions of our tax-payer dollars to 
prosecute this case, I am sure the reasonable prices previously 
experienced by the American software users will be greatly enhanced. 
This, I am sure will offset the great expense.
    Conclusion: If you haven't determined from my remarks, I feel 
this entire proceeding is a miscarriage of justice. However, since 
justice is not the business of the American court system, I hope at 
least the lawyers who profited had a good time.
    I believe it is in the best interest of the American people to 
complete this case now, with the settlement that is on the table.
    Mike Frye



MTC-00008011

From: Diane Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I HAVE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY AT WHAT POINT FREE 
ENTERPRISE BECOMES MONOPOLY BUT I THINK THIS SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT 
HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGHT. THERE WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO 
IS NOT HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS BUT IT IS TIME FOR BUSINESS TO 
CONTINUE AS USUAL. MICROSOFT HAS DONE SO MUCH FOR THE SEATTLE AREA 
AND WASHINGTON AND THE COUNTRY. PLEASE END THIS SITUATION AS SOON AS 
POSSIBLE.
    THANK YOU
    DIANE CRAWFORD



MTC-00008012

From: Keith D. Olinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge the Court and the remaining nine states to 
accept the settlement reached between Microsoft, the DOJ and nine 
states. It is long past time to put this very politically motivated 
piece of our history behind us, and let the economy begin to heal. 
It is truly a sad time in our history when good American companies 
are put through this type of punishment for being innovative and 
relentless in their pursuit of helping the world advance. End this 
pathetic madness now! As a person that deploys massive numbers of 
computer desktops, laptops and servers, I can tell you that the 
benefits of having a common desktop, massive resources for 
development and deployment, and literally thousands and thousands of 
applications that work on that platform are a tremendous time and 
money saver for me.
    Take a trip though history to find out why Windows has the 
largest market share. It is because they provided a great, open 
operating environment at a reasonable price that runs on commodity 
hardware, and ironically, opened up the operating system to 
developers through vehicles like MSDN and developer API's and tools. 
That is precisely why OS/2 faltered, and the Mac never lived up to 
its potential. Mac has still not opened up the developers! If Scott 
McNealy, Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs would spend half of the time 
they spend bashing Microsoft in developing and marketing their own 
product line, they would be have much better companies. Have you 
ever heard these guys?! It is amazing!
    Again, I STRONGLEY urge you to end this now by accepting the 
proposed settlement. This suit does not, in any way, reflect on 
capitalism and a free market society. Actually, it reflects quite 
the opposite.
    Thanks
    Keith Olinger



MTC-00008013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish to voice my opinion that the Microsoft settlement should 
be concluded with no further litigation.
    Bill Clinton spent more time and money investigating and 
prosecuting Bill Gates than he did Osama Bin Laden!!!!!!!!!! Look 
where he got us. Consider all the millions of PC users who have 
benefited from Microsoft's products.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Hood Sigmon
    5805 Woebegone Trail
    Maiden, N. C. 28650-9038
    704-483-5159



MTC-00008014

From: Dennis Santoro
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02  10:55am
Subject: Comments regarding the 2 proposed settlements in the 
Microsoft cases
    To the Department of Justice and the States Attorneys General,
    I am writing in submission of comment regarding your proposed 
settlements in the 2 cases regarding Microsoft corp. I beleive I am 
entitled to submit comments as per the Tunney act of 1974 and wish 
you to consider the below as public comment on the cases.
    With regard to the proposed settlement in the antitrust case, 
unless the remedy actually adresses a consumer's ability to buy any 
computer from any manufacturer with a choice of any OS (Linux, Unix, 
Windows) preconfigured on the machine and MS is prohibibited from 
using its market position to make that difficult or to impose 
penalties on manufactures who wish to do so, MS's position and 
behavior will not be changed. No remedy that fails to address this 
issue will be successful. Further, similar measures should be 
enacted to address bundling of productivity software (office suites) 
to allow competition form Corel, Star Office, IBM (Lotus) and 
others. The fact that purchasers have only the MS office suite as a 
choice in most cases (as per terms usually included in the Windows 
OEM license) means that most other suite vendors are precluded from 
much business de facto.
    The bundling issue should also be addressed but, in my opinion, 
with the exception of the browser and e-mail client choices, most of 
the rest is a non issue. But MS should not be allowed to further 
bundle IE and Outlook unless other choices are also provided and the 
APIs are sufficeintly published and documented so that other 
competitors can easily offer seamless integration.
    All remedies should be monitored and enforced by a group 
actually capable of doing so. MS has proved by past behavior that 
they are untrustworthy in terms of following the letter or spirit of 
agreements they enter into. Penalties should be clear, easy to 
exercise and easy to trigger. The proposed settlement does none of 
that. Nor will simply requiring MS to provide a stripped down 
version of Windows. Furhter, MS's attempt to become the arbitor of 
identity on the internet (Passport) should be precluded so that MS 
cna not extend their monopoly to the internet itself using the 
strength of their current monopoly. As for the consumer suit, while 
the fund amount and it's distribution to schools is quite 
appropriate, these funds should be given without restriction. MS 
should have no input into the spending of these funds. Schools 
should be able to use these funds for infrastructure (wiring, PCs) 
software from ANY vendor, OSs from Apple, Linux vendors, Sun, or MS, 
etc. These funds should be placed in the hands of a group that can 
not, and will not, be connected to nor influenced by MS. MS should 
not have any representatives on the board responsible for the funds. 
It should be made up of credible education professionals and 
computer professionals unaffiliated with vendors and manufacturers. 
The charge to the board should be to help schools meet the needs the 
schools believe they have in the best way possible for the school in 
question. It should NOT be for the purpose of promoting MS products 
in the schools.
    Thank you for your attention and feel free to contact me if you 
have any questions.
    Denn Santoro
    President
    Resource Development Associates
    http://www.RDAWorldWide.Com
    Offices in the United States and Germany
    Providing solutions to health care, business, governments and 
non-profits since 1982



MTC-00008015

From: Henry Cimetta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is good for everyone, but most important to the 
US economy and financial markets.



MTC-00008016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Government,
    Please spend your time and my money hunting terrorists rather 
than Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Gary



MTC-00008017

From: Kevin Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24976]]

    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to you, in accordance with the Tunney Act, to let 
you know my comments and feelings regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I strongly feel that this case has gone too far, has lost the 
interest of the nation, has caused quite enough economic and 
legislative disturbance, and feel it is time for it to come to an 
end.
    As a consumer, I feel Microsoft did nothing wrong. In fact, I 
shudder to think what position we might all be in today had 
Microsoft not risen to the challenges in this ``information age''. 
They are visionary and we are all fortunate that they have hired the 
best and brightest minds to help keep America at the helm of this 
burgeoning, new world. In fact, I believe they helped create this 
new world. Punishing them for it is senseless, useless and harmful.
    The suit again Microsoft has caused harm to our economy beyond 
calculation. A company as large as Microsoft can change the whole 
climate of the economy when it falters. And it has faltered over the 
past two years not due to quality of product or due to quality of 
service or due to inability to continue to innovate. It has faltered 
due to this useless lawsuit.
    It is time for it to be over. After the events of September 
11th, this country has greater things to worry about than this 
lawsuit. Also, the economy is suffering and needs the shot in the 
arm that an unencumbered Microsoft could provide.
    Let's finish this thing. Let's get on with the business of being 
Americans and with the business of innovation, creation and design. 
The world suffers while we ponder and clog the courts with this 
useless matter.
    As a consumer, as a stockholder, as an American, I want this 
thing to end.
    Thank you very much for your time and for hearing my thoughts.
    Kevin D. Edwards
    302 West Sixth Street
    Benton, IL 62812



MTC-00008018

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are a small consulting company in the Fairfax, VA area 
managed by a group of very enterpreneur US citizens--Comter Systems 
Inc. We also do have issues with the bigger players in the field but 
I have to say salutations to them for getting there. I feel the same 
for Microsoft. They started out like everyone else and had worked 
their way to the top and I cannot believe a bunch of jealous 
competitors can create this level of aggravation and insult to them.
    Hope you settle with Microsoft ASAP and thus they can move 
forward and take us to the next generation of Technology and keep 
US, the leader in Technology like they did last time.
    Thank you



MTC-00008019

From: dale janus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:01am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    January 2, 2002
    Dear Justice Department:
    I would like to add my comments to the proposed settlement of 
the microsoft antitrust case.
    I feel the DOJ has not done enough to end microsoft's monopoly 
position. The remedys in the settlement will not change the way 
microsoft does business. The DOJ has already been down this road 
with microsoft before and the remedys imposed in the past have done 
nothing to change their business practices.
    I feel the settlement should be thrown out or at least re-
negotiated so that microsoft changes their business habits.
    The penalty that has been imposed and is going to be paid to 
school districts is so overtly designed to gain sympathy for 
microsoft that I question the skill of your negotiating team. Every 
person with school age children in the country are going to clamor 
for their share of the penalty pot. Microsoft has used their vast 
fortune to create allies among the general public by paying their 
fine to schools instead of the DOJ.
    The current settlement is not enough. The microsoft monopoly 
will continue.
    Dale Janus
    [email protected]



MTC-00008020

From: robert e tolleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a citizen in Nashville, Tennessee, who is tired of this 
continuous dragging out of the Microsoft case. From the beginning I 
have felt that proving the consumer has been harmed by Microsoft 
over the past 10 years was hard to comprehend. Today a consumer can 
own a computer for less than $1000 with an operating system of 
software under $100 that ten years ago cost thousands of dollars and 
only corporations could afford them. Also by Microsoft pioneering 
this home computer industry many other companies have emerged and 
grown tremendously on the surge of this new industry. If competitors 
have been harmed, I am not sure they would have been in business if 
not for the early innovations of Microsoft. That brings us to today 
and a few states funded by special interest groups who will benefit 
at Microsofts demise are continuing to pressure the politicians in 
thier states to refuse to accept a seettlement hashed out by the 
Federal Government and other states. We are at war as a country, and 
I feel that to prolong this case is embarrassing and rediculous in 
the scope of priorities for our country now.
    Please use whatever means legally to discourage these states who 
do not represent the average consumer by continuing this case. IT IS 
TIME TO STOP.



MTC-00008021

From: Tina Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:04am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to let you know my feelings on this proposed 
settlement. I believe it is a tough but fair settlement and should 
be approved. It is not in the best interests of consumers or our 
economy to prolong this litigation further. To do so would stifle 
further innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Dan R. Johnson



MTC-00008022

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@po. state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02  11:05am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    This e-mail is sent in accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974. 
It is my personal opinion as a 17-year veteran of the IT industry 
that the proposed Justice Department settlement is completely 
useless, and it will not hinder Microsoft's attempts at monopoly in 
any way. Microsoft's monopolistic actions since the settlement 
proposal have only intensified; witness the early relase of Windows 
XP to try to avoid an injunction, and the continual push toward 
usage of Microsoft Passport, which has potentially serious 
consequences to not only software companies, but to all e-commerce. 
For the long-term health of the IT industry in specific and the 
American economy in general, I strongly urge that the DoJ settlement 
be completely rejected and that much harsher measures be put into 
place. I would like to further suggest that the original judgement 
(the breakup of Microsoft into seperate companies) be upheld.
    Thank you.
    Roger L. Bonine
    Information Technology Manager
    Miller & Martin LLP
    Chattanooga, TN
    (423) 785-8393



MTC-00008023

From: ROBERT STROHL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    AS A concerned citizen I uge the DOJ to end the political 
persecution of Microsoft and do all things necessary to make the 
propossed settlement become reality.
    A George BUSH Supporter
    Robert D Strohl



MTC-00008024

From: The SHADOW know
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The public perception is that more money was spent by the 
previous administration fighting Microsoft than was spent fighting 
terrorism. True or not, perception is everything, so it is time that 
the Microsoft settlement be approved. We need to put this behind us 
so that we can concentrate on America's real enemy--international 
terrorism.
    Thanks,
    Dr. Ray A. Gaskins
    Hampden-Sydney College
    Hampden-Sydney, Va
    [email protected]
    Ray Gaskins

[[Page 24977]]

    ``The world's a little poorer for a soldier died today. We'll 
hear his tales no longer for he has passed away. He was just a 
simple soldier who was sworn to defend his home, his kin, his 
country, and would fight until the end.'' Anonymous



MTC-00008025

From: Harry LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a professional software developer with 13 years experience, 
and have used both Microsoft and non-Microsoft operating systems, 
middleware, development tools, and applications. I am deeply 
disturbed by the proposed settlement, both for what is included and 
what is left out. I exhort Judge Kollar-Kotelly to remedy these 
flaws.
    What is included:
    1. A five-year limit. Given that Microsoft is riding the wave of 
ill-gotten profits accrued over a decade of illegal monopolistic 
practices, five years isn't enough to restore a marketplace of 
normal competition, even if the settlement didn't provide mechanisms 
(noted below) for Microsoft to hamper the function of the 
implementors of the proposed settlement. It seems to me that the 
enforcement period should be at least twice the duration of 
Microsoft's criminal past, and perhaps certain structural elements 
of a sound settlement should be enforced in perpetuity.
    2. Microsoft's voice in the technical committee. Since when does 
a criminal choose its guards? Given the pervasive influence of 
Microsoft in the market, and their persistent monopolistic behavior, 
it is dubious at best that their chosen representative, and the 
representative who can be vetoed by that person, will fully have the 
interests of the public at heart. Watchdogs chosen by Microsoft, on 
the Microsoft payroll, and working fulltime in secrecy on the 
Microsoft campus, do not meet any reasonable criteria for 
impartiality.
    3. Moreover, crafting in a feature that allows Microsoft to 
dispute costs gives Microsoft a handy built-in mechanism for 
sandbagging. I quote: ``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.''
    Given the vast wealth Microsoft has illegally obtained from the 
public through its monopolism, setting enforcement expenses as 
``reasonable'', and giving Microsoft a mechanism for subpoenaing 
their watchdogs (thus distracting them from their true duty) is 
asking for trouble. Microsoft's bearing of the ``expenses'' of such 
activity will be trivial, and more than compensated by the implicit 
protection of any future monopolistic behavior concealed from the 
technical committee--not to mention that it lets Microsoft run out 
the clock at a very cheap cost. The technical committee should have 
a free hand, and an unlimited budget underwritten by Microsoft.
    4. Microsoft has implicit control over who is permitted to be 
their competitor. Again, I quote: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business...'' Why does Microsoft get to apply 
the litmus test of the ``authenticity and viability'' of who is 
permitted to see their API's?
    Another quote: ``Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer 
Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related 
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate 
with a Windows Operating System Product. ``
    Doesn't Microsoft have control over who participates in their 
proprietary MSDN program, and don't they set criteria of 
participation (eg, nondisclosure, etc)? This is one of the very 
mechanisms by which Microsoft has implemented their monopolistic 
strategy. Such APIs should be *freely distrubuted* to the *public*, 
not sold to the few acceptable competitors that Microsoft 
designates, on terms of their own setting. Allowing Microsoft to use 
their MSDN mechanism and decide which business is authentic and 
viable is too weak. It specifically gives Microsoft a mechanism to 
exclude open source developers, academics, etc.
    What is left out:
    5. Recompense. Microsoft has illegally profited for years from 
their monopolistic practices. That money rightfully belongs to the 
public, and should be returned to the public. It should be fairly 
straightforward to measure the average profitability of their 
nearest competitors vs. Microsoft's illegally enhanced profit 
margins, thus determining how much Microsoft illegally profited. 
Perhaps this money could be funneled into educational grants for 
computer hardware and (completely non-Microsoft) software for 
elementary, secondary, and college tuition. These funds should 
easily cover the expense of putting (for example) a Linux computer 
on the desktop of every student in public schools, state 
universities, etc.
    6. Punitive damages. Over and above returning the ill-gotten 
gains to the public, Microsoft should be penalized for their illegal 
activities.
    7. Document formats. Microsoft enforces its monopoly by keeping 
their file formats proprietary. Since Microsoft chooses which 
competing operating systems to support with their applications, 
companies who have been monopolistically pressured into buying 
Microsoft applications (eg, MS Office) are trapped on the Microsoft 
platform by their inability to migrate their (proprietary and 
copyrighted) corporate data to other operating systems. This is key. 
Microsoft applications compel users to stick with Microsoft 
operating systems, this perpetuating their monopoly. The only remedy 
would be to open up their file formats (or possibly to require them 
to provide fully and publicly documented import/export features that 
allowed users to migrate *all their data* (including ``objects'' 
such as forms, reports, etc.) to competing products, and to likewise 
recreate data from compliant import files (even if created by 
competing products). In other words, the public deserves a way to 
get all their data out of Microsoft products, and Microsoft should 
pay for providing such a mechanism.
    I've heard the rationale that punishing Microsoft would be bad 
for the economy. First of all, that's no excuse for failing in the 
duty to enforce justice. Secondly, the leverage Microsoft has in the 
economy was acquired through their crimes, and the judgment should 
not perpetuate the consequences of their crimes for fear of rocking 
the boat. Third, monopolists have always been bad for the economy, 
the contrary arguments of monopolists notwithstanding. And finally, 
the amount of money from recompense and punitive damages, pumped 
back into the economy in such a way as to stimulate competition in 
the computer software field, should provide an enormous economic 
boost.
    American citizens are counting on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to 
faithfully perform her solemn duty to uphold justice by preventing 
this weak and flawed proposed settlement from being implemented, and 
properly addressing the true interests of the United States of 
America by returning the ill-gotten wealth from Microsoft to the 
public from whom they stole it, further penalizing Microsoft 
financially, and crafting structural remedies to prevent Microsoft 
from ever being able to commit the same crimes again.
    All America is counting on you, Judge. Do your duty.
    Sincerely,
    Harold C. LeBlanc
    1300 Powderhorn Terrace
    Apt. 11
    Minneapolis, MN 55407-1669
    (612-729-9670)
    [email protected]
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin 
Franklin



MTC-00008026

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I think the goverment has spent enough money and time to 
litigate the Microsofr Settlement and should close this case.
    Despite the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft



MTC-00008027

From: Robert Cahall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:08am
Subject: Microsot settlement
    The court should accept the settlement and put this matter 
behind us for the best interests of all of us
    Bob Cahall
    [email protected]

[[Page 24978]]



MTC-00008028

From: Retha Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do believe this is a settlement that does benefit the 
consumer. Microsoft has always built a better mouse trap and the 
market place has reflected it. It is time to get this behind us and 
get the economy moving again and Microsoft is a key player in that 
process. We do not need a few to benefit we need many to benefit if 
we are going to move forward and this settlement certainly helps.
    Sincerely
    Retha Bennett



MTC-00008029

From: Vance L. Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I disagree with the Final Judgment against Microsoft, it is much 
too harsh.
    Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
    - Vance L. Ray



MTC-00008030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement as it presently stands. There has 
been to much intervention by others in the developments made by 
Microsoft. Where would America be today, if it were not for 
Microsoft and its wiliness to bare the cost of development? 
Inventions should be encouraged, not discouraged by law suits, etc.
    Joseph W. Hart
    Naples FL



MTC-00008031

From: Bill Colburn and Susan Marcolina, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely in favor of the Microsoft settlement that has 
been reached between the DOJ, several states and Microsoft, and I 
urge the Judge in this case to accept those terms, reject the 
outrageous claims of the states who have refused to settle and close 
the case in it's entirety.
    Please stop your horrendous waste of our tax dollars in 
harassing and prosecuting one of the most admired companies in 
America, one that will be a key to getting our economy out of the 
dumps, and get back to the serious business of pursuing terrorists, 
murderers, gangsters and others of their ilk. Get back to the real 
work of serving the people of the United States instead of 
continuing to waste the taxpayers' money on private vendettas driven 
by failed competitors of Microsoft and a few Attorneys General who 
think a tough position on high profile case will help them get 
national name recognition and either re-election when their terms 
expire or a nice spot on a national party ticket in the next 
presidential election.
    Thank you.
    William Colburn
    420 Datewood Court NW
    Issaquah, WA 98027



MTC-00008032

From: Sheldon Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:14am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it seems outrageous to me that the government has spent so much 
time and money prosecuting microsoft when there are other problems 
that are so much more deserving of the money and effort.
    you spent years chasing ibm amd accomplished nothing but making 
lawyers rich.
    you broke apart at&t so that we all pay more money for less 
phone service and cannot identify which vendor is at fault when 
things 'do not work'. while microsoft is not perfect, they do 
producr a consistant predicable product that fully integrated those 
option in the pc operating system that i care to use.
    i do not look forward to the govenment getting me somethig 
better that i will end up paying more for and spneding hours 
installing it.
    it ain't broke--why do you have to fix it.
    let sun and oracle fight their own battles.
    the american consumer has been well served by microsoft- better 
than the doj serves us in this case
    spend your time on terrorists and organized crime--do something 
useful
    sheldon katz



MTC-00008033

From: Cecily Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:11am
Subject: MS Monopoly comment
    I was appalled at the settlement for the regular suit, and for 
the settlement for those states that held out for more. The remedy 
is little more that a slap of Ann Lander's proverbial wet noodle. 
And, as Apple has rightly pointed out, the schools provision puts 
the fox solidly within the hen house. Microsoft engages in 
monopolistic practices. So we hand them a great opportunity to take 
over one of the few markets of its alternative in operating systems? 
I don't need a doctorate in electrical engineering or jurisprudence 
to see this lacks any common sense, nor does the punishment fit the 
crime.
    Microsoft's disdain for any government remedy for its 
monopolistic tendencies was revealed at about the same time as the 
regular settlement was anounced. They knocked all users except those 
using Microsoft browsers and email programs off their MSN.com 
internet provider service - which is generally paid for by users. A 
free subscription to the MSN ISP is often given for a limited time 
with new Windows machines, but after that free period, people have 
to pay to get the use.
    Of course there was a great uproar and they were forced to back 
down, but the very fact that they'd pull such a egregious stunt at 
the very time they were to learn of their court penalties shows that 
they MUST be closely monitored.
    Their new operating system doesn't show much of an improvement 
in the monopolistic tendencies although it's made some grudging 
hooks so different web browsers can be used. And it has grudgingly 
allowed PC makers the option to sell machines on which the Windows 
operating system is not installed.
    And they say they will offer open systems? And they say they 
will follow/allow existing standards? That must be why the cell 
phone standards are being set by all except Microsoft which is 
offering its own? Unhunh, and I have a bridge to sell you.
    Cecily Wood,
    Technology Planning and Support
    (Although my views are part and parcel of my job, they may not 
represent the school system's.)



MTC-00008034

From: M. G. Fred Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is long overdue for the settlement, prolonging this 
action to please special interests especially AOL (the most consumer 
unfriendliest ISP and the most expensive)will only hurt the 
consuming public and cost the taxpayer an other fortune. Let 
Microsoft get on with it's service to the consumers worldwide, it 
will help our exports, provide jobs, and help our ailin economy.
    M.G. Fred Kick



MTC-00008035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18am
Subject: Settlement
    Please settle this matter as quickly as possible.
    Harold Potler



MTC-00008036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:19am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT CONCERNS,
    I AM NOT A PERSON THAT TYPICALLY WRITES THESE 
LETTERS........JUST TOO BUSY.
    HOWEVER, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT IS TIME TO CLOSE THIS CASE 
AGAINST MICROSOFT.
    THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC HAS GREATLY BENEFITED FROM THE 
STANDARDIZATION BROUGHT BY THEIR STRONG MARKET POSITIONS. WE SHOULD 
STOP PUNISHING THEM.
    ALSO, OUR ECONOMY NEEDS US TO LET THIS GO AND FOCUS IN OTHER 
AREAS.
    Judy L. Price
    Judy L. Price, CPA, Inc.
    [email protected]
    REDDING OFFICE:
    1616 West Street
    Redding, CA 96001
    530-246-4114
    530-246-4115 fax
    COTTONWOOD OFFICE:
    3861 Country Estates Drive
    Cottonwood, CA 96022
    530-347-1726
    530-347-4558 fax

[[Page 24979]]



MTC-00008037

From: Jack Burleigh
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I've read about the Microsoft settlement on the Department 
website. The settlement seems entirely fair and reasonable to me and 
I urge the Department to finalize the settlement. In my humble 
opinion, it is time for this litigation to end.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Burleigh



MTC-00008038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should stand in its current form. Those who 
desire to reject it and force the breakup of Microsoft do not 
understand economics. If Microsoft truly does not serve the public 
market because of security flaws in its products or other factors, 
then innovation on the part of competitors will bring about desired 
changes. It may take a little longer than a government lawsuit, but 
ultimately the free market will be served and government 
intervention will not be needed. Microsoft became as large as it is 
because its products were innovative and made computers easier to 
use by the general public. They may have gone in a direction that 
discouraged competition, but I personally have not found many 
products that can compete -- and I have looked. Linux may be the 
catalyst that causes the corporate shakeup the Clinton 
Administration looked for in the original lawsuit. We do not need 
the expense or use of DOJ resources for additional action against 
Microsoft.
    Abbott Barclay
    Richmond, Virginia



MTC-00008039

From: Rudolf Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement accepted by the DOJ is fair and 
reasonable and should be the end of the litigation. We have spent 
far too much already on this vendetta of a few competitors and it is 
time to end it.
    Stop this fruitless litigation and let Microsoft and the US get 
on with life. The very people (the public)that the litigation was 
supposed to have been protecting have NOT been complaining so who is 
this really about?
    Rudolf Forster
    [email protected]



MTC-00008040

From: Betty H meng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sun and Oracle need to compete fairly with Microsoft in the 
market place not in the courts--anti-trust doesn't apply when there 
is no way to put a price tag on createtivity and entrepreneurship--
    Let the customers be the jusdge and the jury--We know how to 
make our decision--
    These 9 states should not be granted a license to sue--Let them 
all create competively and we be the judge and jury and decide--
    Mrs Betty B Meng (78 years old and experienced )



MTC-00008041

From: Dewire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is hard for me to understand my government's instance on 
trying to punish an American company that has become a world wide 
standard for excellence. How does it help consumers to prevent a 
company from giving away features with their product? True, it hurts 
their competition because their competition did not think of it 
first.
    I as one American Tax Payer, am tired of the government wasting 
my money going after a tax paying American Company.
    Foreign government encourage and support their industries...only 
in America do we try to tear down what our citizens create and 
develop...under the banner of being too big and powerful. Other 
countries laugh at our Justice Department for doing their work for 
them in trying to eliminate our own American powerhouses.
    In Japan Bill Gates would be declared a Living National 
Treasure...In Great Briton he would be knighted....here you are 
doing everything you can to destroy him!
    Come to your common senses and enjoy and hail what Microsoft has 
accomplished.
    Robert and Carol Dewire
    3640 Bal Harbor Blvd. # 511
    Punta Gorda, Florida
    33950



MTC-00008042

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    can you imagin the mess the computer industry would be in if 
microsoft had not set a standard that every could follow. boot the 
politicians out out of the process.



MTC-00008043

From: Dixie DeRoshia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsoft's right to innovate and feel the Federal 
Government has overstepped it's duty to protect and it has in fact, 
harrassed a private concern unnecessarily.
    Dixie Coster-DeRoshia



MTC-00008044

From: William Wertz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008045

From: Bob Blake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:25am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I concur in the agreement in the Microsoft Case
    Robert Blake Jr
    13 Ethel Avenue
    Peabody, MA 01960-530813



MTC-00008046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There needs to be a prompt resolution of the cases involving 
Microsoft. I am a substantial user of various interrelated Microsoft 
products which I use to conduct my daily business. Those products 
currently meet my needs very well. I cannot afford to have their 
interdependency shatttered!



MTC-00008047

From: JANE WALKER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:27am
Subject: Case settlement
    This case needs to be settled as soon as possible. With the 
state of the economy, another company does not need to be damaged by 
the interference of the government and people who are not dependent 
on this company for their living. We should not punish people for 
being brilliant and having innovative ideas.
    Martha Jane Walker
    3663 Briar Creek
    Beaumont, TX 77706



MTC-00008048

From: richard tighe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please- Let us settle the Microsoft case, and not continue to 
litigate!



MTC-00008049

From: Fred Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    In my opinion the Tunney Act covering the Microsoft Settlement 
is fair, equitable and in the public's interest. I think that this 
law should stand, all the litigators should go chase other fire 
engines and our country should get back to building our economy 
instead of tearing it down. We should not attack corporations based 
on the fact that they have been successful. If a company can't 
compete it can't make it up by litigation. 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-00008050

From: Leroy E Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to complete the settlement as proposed. It is fair 
and balanced and removes futher uncertainty over an entire industry. 
This should be beneficial to the stock market and to business 
generally. Leroy E. Gardner



MTC-00008051

From: Rick Deno

[[Page 24980]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put this litigation behind us and let the economy finally 
take a step forward. Microsoft's customers made Microsoft a 
monopoly, NOT Microsoft. If we chose some other alternative, I want 
to be the one doing the choosing, not the Government.



MTC-00008052

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    For nearly four years, my 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 my 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.
    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.
    I AM IN FAVOR OF TAKING THE SETTLEMENT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED 
AND LETTING THIS MATTER BE SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL. ANY FURTHER 
LITIGATION WILL DO NOTHING BUT MAKE A LOT OF LITIGATORS WEALTHY AND 
THAT IS NOT NEEDED AT THIS TIME IN OUR LIVES.
    THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO MY COMMENTS.
    HOWARD F. RENFORTH
    144 CROSSTIDE CIRCLE
    PONTE VEDRA BEACH FL 32082



MTC-00008053

From: Clark, Nick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is good to see that some of the states are finally getting on 
with settling their dispute with Microsoft. Although I've never felt 
indebted to Microsoft for the career I'm currently in I do however 
feel that it was their foresight and technology that pushed a 
technology market so far that eight years ago I finally found what I 
wanted to do for the rest of my life. I love working with their 
product! If it weren't for all the dumbass hackers making it harder 
on consumers Microsoft would probably be an even bigger company.
    It's a shame for the states that are still in dispute over the 
current settlement agreement but you can never please everyone all 
of the time. I know alot of the issues that are still being mulled 
over are purely political and it's sad that nobody will remember the 
idiots still attacking Microsoft come the next election. Microsoft 
got to where they are because of their innovative ways. Yes, 
business deals have been made and they do need to play nice with 
their desktop and server operating systems. As for the market that 
either competes or works with Microsoft, they too need to develop 
better technology. If they didn't get behind in the first place we 
probably wouldn't even be going through this right now. Thank you 
for your time.
    Nick Clark
    IT Manager/Consultant
    http://www.kebcpa.com/html/information--technology.html>
    Kerber, Eck & Braeckel LLP http://www.kebcpa.com/>
    Springfield, IL 62701



MTC-00008054

From: Katy Ainsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:37am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please note that I am a voting citizen of the United States of 
America. I am writing this letter in response to the settlement 
agreement with Microsoft. I feel this settlement to be in the best 
interest of consumers, the country, and especially the economy. With 
the downturn of the economy of the United States since the 9-11 I 
feel it to be of utmost importance to get this mess behind us and 
keep the economy stable. America is a capitalist country and we 
should do all we can to keep it this way.
    Thank you.
    Katy Robertson



MTC-00008055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This suit by the federal government against Microsoft has not 
been in the public interest. Microsoft has plenty of competition and 
prices on all things electronic continue to drop. Please settle this 
case so Microsoft and the country can get on with it.
    F. Lynn Leverett
    7604 SW 178 Terrace
    Miami, Florida 33157



MTC-00008056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:39am
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    You must force Microsoft to place a warning sticker on any 
software that requires the user to first install the Microsoft 
Internet Explorer browser before the said software can be installed. 
I use the Netscape browser and they wanted me to install MS IE 
before I could make greeting cards! I declined and asked for a 
refund.
    William Kenney
    Jamaica, NY



MTC-00008057

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:41am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement. I believe it works in 
my favor as a customer.
    Joann levine--



MTC-00008058

From: Mary Selvick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:40am
Subject: settlement
    I hope you can forward this to the senators; I have had it with 
the government sticking its nose into ``honest'' companies! Leave 
Microsoft alone! The settlement was fair!
    What I would like to see is a committee come together to 
investigate the ``Pork'' that all the senators push through and the 
tax payers have to foot the bill!
    I am for term limits and get those damn bloodsuckers out!



MTC-00008059

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates did not force me to buy his products. I evaluated his 
products and am glad I do not have to hire a consultant to make 
various software programs work seemlessly together. My productivity 
has increased because I do not have to waste time figuring out 
various software programs. Clearly, Gates and Balmer have been 
agressive and at times arrogant (Balmer).
    Give them a fine, tell them not to do it again but let them get 
on with business and offering new products. Microsoft may not be the 
most innovative but they certainly make things work better. Do you 
use Word and PowerPoint? I am considering switching from Quicken to 
Microsoft becasue Quicken constantly crashes and according to 
reviews has been surpassed by Microsoft Money. Netscaape and AOL's 
internet browser are inferior to Microsoft Explorer.
    Give Microsoft credit for turning on a dime and realizing that 
the internet would change our lives. Do not be dictated by 
competitors who think a lawsuit is the only way of ``beating'' 
Microsoft.
    Stop wasting more time and money and let's move on. America 
should concentrate on being an economic superpower that will further 
globalization to help wipe out individuals or groups like the 
Taliban and bin Laden.

[[Page 24981]]



MTC-00008060

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: Dept. Of Justice
    FROM: Mary Ann Sullivan 65 Park Ave.
    Williston Park, NY 11596
    I am pleased with the DOJ ruling on Microsoft. I do not believe 
that it would be in the best interest of the American economy to 
break up Microsoft. If other states want to go ahead and and sue 
Microsoft, I wish them luck! They won't succeed. We need a company 
like Microsoft to keep the American economy strong and progressive.
    There are idiots today who hate Microsoft and don't even know 
how to use a computer!
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008061

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attack on Microsoft because they built a better mousetrap is 
unwarranted and outrageous.
    I have been a computer user and analyst since my entry into the 
workforce some thirty years ago. In 1966, I was first introduced to 
programming (FORTRAN) as an engineering student. I can tell you I 
had no interest following this experience in being a computer geek! 
I left school and served in the USAF, with Viet Nam service. I 
returned to school on the GI Bill and obtained my BA and MBA. In 
this process, I was exposed to GPSS, Wang calculators and other 
cutting edge (at that time) computer models. They still left me with 
wanting someone else to do my modeling.
    Graduating with my MBA, I then became a systems and financial 
analyst for a Bank holding company designing major banking systems 
(we were the first to install ACH in Florida and mini-computers in 
the bank branches) and using timeshare models. As computers moved 
away from the ``big box'' towards the ultimate ``personal 
computers'' I became more of a hands on user.
    I became a CPA working for a major firm and then as the #3 
financial spot with a fortune 500 which became a LBO and then 
liquidated. After the liquidation, I went into the work force as a 
consultant/CPA with my only staff being a PC under DOS. Without my 
computer background, it would have been extremely difficult for me 
to grasp what was going on in the PC--DOS environment-with seperate, 
unintegrated Lotus, WordPerfect, database and other applications. It 
was only several years later that I finally migrated to Windows 
which I initially resisted because I did not want to retrain myself.
    When I found what Windows and the integrated applications could 
do--I never looked back. AND THE TOTALLY INTEGRATED PACKAGES I 
PURCHASED WERE FAR CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT AND BETTER than the more 
expensive packages that I had perviously been working with. Because 
of the systems created by Bill Gates--I have less office staff, am 
more efficient at what I do, am willing to do my own modeling and 
correspondence, email, internet access, etc. etc. etc.
    I am at a loss as to what you think Bill Gates and Microsoft 
have done to harm me--the consumer! As I understand it, the major 
issue against microsoft revolves around their internet access system 
(MSN) which I do not use. I am an AOL user. And while I have found 
some conflicts which are an irritant--I do not consider them 
actionable. I still use AOL (my kids would not let me move) and have 
figured out how to defeat whatever conflict (perceived or real) 
existed. Note: AOL Instant messenger is another example of an 
innovative creation which for the life of me I do not understand why 
someone who creates and builds a better mousetrap (and is the only 
one who has and everyone wants it) needs to be punished for doing 
so! If you want someone to attack--why don't you look at some of the 
tax software firms--Why do I have to pay so much for software from 
them? Their fees are excessive in my opinion. SETTLE THIS ACTION 
AGAINST MICROSOFT AND MOVE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00008062

From: Ralph Askam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of settleing the microsoft case as has been 
proposed in the final sttlement agreement.
    I think enough time and money has been wasted on this matter and 
that every one would be better off withit's settlement.
    Thank you
    Ralph F. Askam M.D.
    4120 Nobhill Dr.
    Muskegon.Mi. 49441 231 780 2252



MTC-00008063

From: Robert Hess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm writing to you in regards to the proposed settlement of the 
anti-trust suit against Microsoft.
    I have several points of view on this matter.
    As a (minor) shareholder, I feel too much time and money has 
already been spent by the company and the taxpayers on this matter. 
The company has agreed to abide by the proposed settlement to which 
the federal government and nine states have also agreed.
    As a long-time personal computer user, I have never been forced 
to utilize Microsoft products. Over the years, I use, and have used, 
different operating systems, internet browsers, word processing 
software, spreadsheet programs, etc. In some cases, the Microsoft 
product was the best choice for me, in other cases, it was not...but 
I have a choice.
    As an American taxpayer, I'm tired of the taxes I pay being 
wasted on a handful of lawyers making their careers on long, drawn 
out bureaucracies such as this.
    It is time for this matter to be settled.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Hess
    Wyomissing, PA



MTC-00008064

From: Ted Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think that Microsoft should be able to conduct business as it 
sees fit. Microsoft has announced its plans all along to the 
competition who thought that their grip was enough to see it 
through. When reality struck they called foul. When they had 
Microsoft on the ropes and tied up in Federal court they forged 
alliances themselves trying to become the ruler of the computer/on-
line worlds. To what avail? Allow Microsoft to continue to move 
ahead in its product development and desktop integration. Don't 
punish them for their innovation but rather allow the market place 
to dictate the direction of the marketplace and may the best 
companies win!
    Ted Michael
    248-877-5772
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008065

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to make my voice heard regarding the Microsoft suit. The 
suit against Microsoft was a huge mistake from the beginning. Since 
when is our government in the business of suing successful 
businesses, because the competition says it is unfair.
    I believe that the settlement which has been reached is fair to 
all parties. The government has never made a case showing where 
consumers were harmed by Microsoft. In fact, the exact opposite is 
true. Microsoft has made it possible for more and more consumers to 
benefit from use of computers and the internet.
    Please end this costly suit at once and move forward with the 
settlement already agreed upon.. If Microsoft had an unfair 
advantage, shouldn't the competitors have been benefitting from the 
tough times of Microsoft this past few years (due to this 
litigation)? The opposite has occurred. We have all seen our stocks 
in all of the internet companies go down the tube. Look at the 
numbers. This decline began almost in direct correlation with the 
Lawsuit. Now consumers truly have been harmed, but not by Microsoft, 
but by our own Government which will not leave the free market free.
    Please do the right thing now.. Thank you for your time...Joyce 
Krawiec



MTC-00008066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone-The settlement is reasonable to all 
parties-Stop wasting money on more litigation pushed by wealthy 
special interest groups.!!!!
    Julie Baron



MTC-00008067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Department of Justice,

[[Page 24982]]

    As we all know, our economy is suffering and we are now in a 
recession. If the case against Microsoft is resolved soon, I think 
our American public will gain the confidence it needs to begin 
investing in our great economy again.
    Because Microsoft has brought so much to this world in software 
technology, they should be applauded and not obnoxiously criticized 
for their efforts. Sure, they should operate accordingly and be 
punished accordingly, but enough is enough. Let's get on with it and 
start this economy rolling again.
    AMM



MTC-00008068

From: Edgar Lambert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to me the states are only interested in getting 
revenue out of this law suit similar to the tobacco lawsuit. I don't 
believe the public interest has anything to do with it. Microsoft 
should be free to continue to innovate as they've done in the past 
which has made vast changes in our lives as well as helped the 
economy to grow.
    Ed Lambert



MTC-00008069

From: Margaret Murdock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think you should accept the Microsoft settlement that has been 
reached by the DOJ and the various 9 states who wanted something 
different than the original DOJ agreement. Microsoft has paid enough 
for being a successful company. As far as I am concerned the whole 
thing has been a miscarriage of justice.
    You learned all your computer use/knowledge at tax payer expense 
and with an Information Specialist standing by to get your computer 
straightened out from any screwups you did. We tax payers have not 
had that luxury.
    When I bought my first computer, for my son to use at college, 
it cost more than I was able to save in one year, and then when I 
got it home, I had to figure out how to put DOS 3.3 (for which I had 
to pay extra) on it. Then I had to pay another $150 for a word 
processor, which I had to install on it, in the hopes that it would 
all work together. AND, I did not have the luxury of any one to help 
me if it didn't all work OK. And if I broke it--to bad.
    Microsoft has made the purchase of a computer to use a pleasure, 
not the nightmare it use to be. All the software that you need to do 
the things that you want your new computer to do--is on it, and runs 
correctly!! More than any other company, Microsoft has made 
computers able to be used by anyone in the world. It is no longer 
only for the computer savvy few. Even you would not be able to use 
your computer if it were not for Microsoft making it easy enough 
that you can simply point and click your way around different 
windows.
    Don't let the special interest groups stop the settlement.
    Margaret Murdock



MTC-00008070

From: Joe Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the lawsuits brought against Microsoft are for 
the most part politically (self interest) motivated. Obviously 
Microsoft has been very successful and, as a result, has become very 
big. However, it is still important that the software industry be 
allowed to have a definite leader in a free market. I think that 
other companies should be guaranteed the right to compete with 
Microsoft, but they should not be guaranteed success! In general, I 
believe that the current proposed settlement with Microsoft by the 
DOJ is more than fair to the parties which have filed charges 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Joe E. Johnson



MTC-00008071

From: Jim Applebaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir or Ms.,
    I believe the settlement of the DOJ suit against Microsoft 
should be approved as soon as possible.
    Thank you,
    Jim A.



MTC-00008072

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58am
Subject: Micro Soft Settlement
    My wife Billie and I both believe that the whole Microsoft trial 
has been unamerican and a total travisty. We grow up being taught 
that as Americans the sky is the limit. We are told that hard work, 
original thinking and attaining goals are the keys to success. 
Apparently not so if we take the example of the Microsoft affair as 
an indication of how it works. There isn't a single company in the 
U.S. that has done more for the American Image than Microsoft, and 
it is a world-wide perception. They should be rewarde, not 
punished!!!!!
    Billie & Don McKee



MTC-00008073

From: Lyle McDermed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft is being punished for being 
successful. There seem to be several Microsoft wannabees that have 
an inferior product that want to see Microsoft pay through the nose 
for good business practices that the wannabees do not have! Since 
capitolisim allows for and encourges success, I fail to see why the 
federal Justice Department and the different States are trying to 
destroy Microsoft. Success should breed additional success and not 
PUNISHMENT!
    Lyle K. McDermed



MTC-00008074

From: Ken (038) Audrey Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel the settlement is fair and should apply to all the 
states involved.
    We are not sure why the states should get anything, Microsoft 
has given all states computers and training.
    Sincerely,
    Audrey Smith



MTC-00008075

From: DICKBEAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:02pm
Subject: End The Legal Obstructions
    Senator Hatch and Microsoft's Utah competitors should get a 
life. The court has ruled and we should all be moving on.
    Richard C Bean



MTC-00008076

From: GERALD HARTZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I think this foolishness has gone far enough, too far in fact. 
If you can't see that these lingering nine states are in ``it'' 
strictly for the money than I have a bridge I want to sell you after 
this foolishness is concluded. We cannot control the success of one 
company, i.e. Microsoft, and the failures of others by taking money 
from the successful one and giving it to the slackers in an attempt 
to even the playing field. This is absolutely stupid, and My 
Government must act more intelligently than that. This entire 
``suit'' thing (designed by the previous Clinton Administration who 
when faced with what to do and had no intelligent way to turn, sued) 
makes me sick. Wake up Justice Department!!!!!!!
    This email comes to you from US Citizen:
    Gerald Hartz
    19 Diller Line Road
    Chesterville, ME 04938



MTC-00008077

From: Frank (038) Debbie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the settlement. Stop further frivolous 
litigation and let the computer industry get back to business.
    Thank you,
    Frank Hobin
    409 S. Beech St.
    Winnsboro, Tx 75494
    (903) 342-9222



MTC-00008078

From: Thelma Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:04pm
Subject: No subject was specified.
    Re. the Microsoft Settlement:
    With regards to the new Microsoft settlement, we would like to 
add our thoughts to what so much of the American public thinks. We 
agree with the settlement and find it a tough but beneficial 
settlement for all concerned. We believe that the interests of all 
the parties are well served by this proposal and we urge you to 
finalize this

[[Page 24983]]

settlement as soon as possible. As a consumer, we think the terms 
are fair to us as well as to the aggrieved parties. Please do not 
delay this proposal, Let's get this behind us, and keep the American 
economy moving!
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Thelma and Nelson Stevens
    Barrington, IL.



MTC-00008079

From: Luiz De Lima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The litigation against Microsoft has already damaged the economy 
perhaps more than terrorist acts. I think it is time to settle the 
case and move forward to resume growth.



MTC-00008080

From: Allan Kalar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:08pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Yes, Microsoft has some problems, but delaying the settlement is 
not the way to solve them.
    Microsoft's biggest problem is that their operating systems 
aren't reliable. No amount of legislation or court action is going 
to fix that. The marketplace will. Linux is currently replacing 
Windows as the system of choice for web sites because it's more 
robust and cheaper per node. Hardly the scene you'd associate with a 
monopoly situation. Don't let the special interests whine their way 
into the procedings. Settle this thing now so the world can get on 
to something important.
    Allan Kalar
    Viking Waters (not connected with Microsoft)
    800-838-5958
    [email protected]
    PO Box 1975
    Elma, WA 98541--
    Don't put a question mark where God put a period.



MTC-00008082

From: Arden Warner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off of Microsoft's back.
    Please end your never-ending, apparently obsessive, interest in 
the Microsoft case. You've done enough. Send your people after 
someone--or something--of consequence. Prosecuting a business, 
simply because the business is successful, provides a large group 
of--otherwise (possibly/probably) unemployable--attorneys with 
ample, overpaid, employment and on-the-job training. But it serves 
very little, if any, meaningful purpose. Microsoft does more good 
for the United States of America, by sheer accident--in one week, 
than your organization does, with hundreds of overpaid bureaucrats, 
working around the clock, in 20 years.
    Buy your staff some pool tables and foosball machines, and keep 
them busy with those interests and activities. By giving them 
anything else to do--you are taking the risk of doing much harm. I 
am proud of what Microsoft has done for society--and for the entire 
world. I am not at all proud of what you people do--either for a 
living or as a potential benefit to society. In fact, what you do 
for a living is kind of embarrassing. Try looking for some honest--
and meaningful and productive--work. There must be something that 
you can do.
    Arden Warner
    11038 Quail Run
    Dallas, TX 75238-3712
    214-341-8174



MTC-00008083

From: Larry Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02 12:10pm
    I work in the travel industry. We're struggling to stay in 
business and it will be a tough year in the best of scenarios.
    In the interest of our nation and economy, I ask that the case 
against Microsoft be closed.
    Thanks,
    Larry Cox



MTC-00008084

From: Marty McCafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed with the settlement. It seems to just 
bandage the problems with Microsoft's monopoly powers. Microsoft can 
easily use the delays in court to damage competitors.
    Microsoft's illegal advantages have striped the computer 
industry of real innovation. A simple look at the computer related 
technology growth in the 80's compared to the 90's to present 
Microsoft era shows we are stagnate. Microsoft has choked off 
innovation so only the monetary strong can attempt to compete. This 
severely limits innovation.
    For instance, In the 80's a $300 Commodore 64 could play music 
and simple voice recognition and used the latest technology and most 
people could afford it. An Amiga computer was about $600 could 32-
bit multi tasking operating system, play digital music, speech 
synthesis, video capture and has hundred of affordable graphic and 
sound programs and was capable of hi speed modem access. The PC 
controlled by Microsoft has just recently been able to offer these 
abilities mostly because of the cost to do business with Microsoft 
and the ability of Microsoft to starve a small innovator out of the 
market using there illegal monopolistic power.
    The only way to really help the consumer is to break Microsoft's 
up into competing Microsoft companies. The vacuum left behind would 
be filled with lots of innovative competitors keeping prices down 
and new ideas and technologies affordable. We would see the computer 
growth of the 80's of a scale of todays PC market.
    Microsoft's biggest market strength is they can ``include'' 
products in there OS that a person would not purchase but may keep 
someone from purchasing a competitors product. Netscape is one big 
example, Explorer was an inferior product and few would download it, 
so Microsoft included it in the OS. Now a user could use the 
inferior product because it was included and they may be less likely 
to download the competitive product. Microsoft's recent Media Play 8 
is following the same game plan. There are better products out there 
but users are less likely to download them because they have a 
``similar'' product included with the OS.
    Why invest in competing with Microsoft with their ability to 
force new computers to have there competing products ``integrated''?
    The computer industry could really used more competition in the 
OS and application fields to bring down the cost of good products.
    Regards, Marty
    Marty McCafferty
    Network Administrator
    Nissei Sangyo America, Ltd.
    Phone: (847) 273-4327 Fax: (847) 273-4127
    E-mail: [email protected]
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00008085

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: Without Microsoft products, I would be 
unable to have my business and help my daughter with school. 
Microsoft made products that work for the private person and are 
affordable. The case against this innovative company is ridiculous 
and is hurting our economy. 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 in creating technology 
that is affordable to so many people.
    Thanks for providing a means for me to express my opinion
    Linda Roddis
    St. Paul, MN



MTC-00008086

From: maryasara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This was never really a DOJ case. If there was a problem with 
Microsoft's competition, they should have spent their own money and 
brought a civil case. How about a DOJ case against the competion for 
collusion.



MTC-00008087

From: James Morss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    It's time to settle and get on with business. We need companies 
like Microsoft to stay healthy and competitive. Microsoft has given 
the US a big competitive edge in the tech market and we need to help 
them not punish them further. Let's move on.
    Jim Morss
    206 174th Pl. NE
    Bellevue, WA 98008



MTC-00008088

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

[[Page 24984]]

Date: 1/3/02  12:23pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLMENT
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am writing to let you know that I am in favor of the 
settlement of the Microsoft dispute. I believe that it will be for 
the good of our economy and our sense of fairness and freedom to 
accept the settlement and get on with the growth of our 
technological businesses.
    Sincerely,
    Anne G. Stout



MTC-00008089

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Continued interference by government in the free market is 
unwanted and not what we are electing politicians to do. They are 
only hurting economic recovery. Get off the back of business.
    C.S. Griffith, Ponte Vedra, Florida



MTC-00008090

From: John, Christine, Cailyn and Jared Cattell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete the proposed settlement as soon as possible. I 
strongly believe this is in the best interests of our country's 
freedom to innovate and to help our economy pull out of recession. I 
believe these lawsuits were motivated by Microsoft's competitors who 
are trying to ``rob'' Microsoft of their rewards for producing 
outstanding products that have propelled our technology growth over 
the last decade.
    Again, please do not stand in the way of an economic recovery 
and freedom to innovate with new products. Complete the proposed 
settlement now and let's move on.
    Thank you,
    John Cattell



MTC-00008091

From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My thougts on the subject case.
    I am glad the subject case is coming to a close. I understand 
litigation of this magnitude takes time, however, in this case you 
took way to long in reaching a final decision.
    By not coming to a quicker decision it affected the economic 
well being of many developers waiting in the wings for a decision. 
Small to mid-size organizations are still the backbone of our 
economy and you under-cut their ability to act and/or react. Most 
organizations do not have the cash that a Microsoft has, therefore, 
quicker decisions are necessary. I agree Microsoft should not have 
been broken up.
    I am disappointed that you are allowing them a long-term free 
hand in entering the education market. The long-term effects will 
favor Microsoft and put competition at a disadvantage. Other 
remedies would have been more realistic and would have encouraged 
long-term competition.
    Punishment was in order and you fell short.
    Bill Williams
    [email protected]



MTC-00008092

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:23pm
Subject: settlement of governmebt lawsuit
    Come on!! Lets get this thing behind us and encourage the 
lawyers to work on something that really is worthwhile.
    Microsoft has been a boon to world economy. They shouldn't be 
punished! Microsoft deserves to be #1.
    Microsoft's competitors should spend their money $$$ on 
improving their businesses, not on lawyers.
    Al Boden



MTC-00008093

From: Vince Yelmini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the midst of these uncertain economic times, the last thing 
the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a 
few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    This settlement is in the public's interest: it is tough, but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. It is good for 
consumers, the industry and the American economy.
    Please settle this and clear the court system!
    Sincerely, V.A.Yelmini



MTC-00008094

From: Fred Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle. The DOJ had a poor excuse to start with 
and hammered the tech sector with the threat of breakup. Settle as 
agreed.



MTC-00008095

From: Catherine Ansbro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:28pm
Subject: comments
    I am concerned about the proposed ``penalties'' on Microsoft. 
These so-called penalties do not really punish this company for its 
monopolistic activity over many years. In fact, they make it 
possible for Microsoft to continue its monopolistic activities in 
the years to come. This is simply not acceptable.
    Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet 
Web Browser market. This is more apparent to a software developer 
who works 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. 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. 
Whether or not they supposedly did it 'on purpose', the result is 
the same: a monopoly.
    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 
gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who must pay for courses 
and tests, and so become personally invested) to use only Microsoft 
Products.
    One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on 
the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Of course not, because they 
didn't have the chance to because of Microsoft's illegal monopoly 
and its unfair treatment of would-be competitors. This lack of 
competition is still hurting us all, at the level of individual 
users who do not experience freedom of choice in the products that 
are made available to us, and at the level of businesses who could 
have made different and better products and considerable profits 
during these years that Microsoft was an illegal monopoly.
    Hardware manufacturers is hiding the price of the operating 
system on new computer systems. And they are not permitted to sell 
the hardware separately from the software. This is fundamentally 
wrong.
    The legal resolution to this matter should include the following 
demands on Microsoft:
    (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, and other software 
manufacturers will have a chance to compete. Installation of 
software selected by the user can remain free. For example, I prefer 
to be able to buy a linux operating system installed on a new 
computer. Why should I have to also pay for a Microsoft OS that I do 
not want or need? And why is the price of the Microsoft OS & 
Software not published?
    (2) 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.
    (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

[[Page 24985]]

Process for creation of their operating systems would give software 
manufacturers 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. It also helps the average consumer 
because they get a better product. Judgment in this case needs to be 
fair to the consumer, because future cases will look toward this as 
a precedent. Please take these steps to ensure that Microsoft is 
truly penalized from its years of monopoly activities--including 
harsh financial penalties that will resound throughout the computer 
industry--and include the recommended steps above to ensure that 
Microsoft is never able to do this again.
    Catherine Ansbro
    236 Pawnee
    West Lafayette,
    Indiana 47906



MTC-00008096

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the Microsoft settlement is fair. Lets get this over 
with. There must be more important things to spend our tax dollars 
on. FDCartwright.



MTC-00008097

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have no business affiliation with Microsoft. I am simply a 
very happy consumer of their products. I have used Microsoft and 
competing products for years and I firmly believe that Microsoft's 
dominance in the market is the result of a superior product. 
Computer software has never been so easy to use and has never been 
so integrated.
    On the other hand, I am not blind to the mistakes Microsoft has 
made. However, I believe the remedies agreed to by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice are more than adequate. The states that have 
chosen to not accept the agreement between nine states, Microsoft, 
and the Department of Justice are states in which Microsoft's 
largest competitors are based. These states are rejecting the 
settlement because large corporations in there districts want 
Microsoft removed as a competitor, NOT because there is a public 
outcry by consumers over how they have been mistreated and 
overcharged by Microsoft.
    Please accept the proposed agreement and let Microsoft survive. 
The alternative remedy proposed by the other nine states would 
cripple Microsoft, demoralize their employees, and ruin any 
incentive the company has for continued innovation of their 
products. It would be a mistake far bigger than the collapse of 
Enron.
    Branden Hoopes
    A happy Microsoft consumer



MTC-00008098

From: Harry E. B. Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe there should be no governmental action of any kind 
against Microsoft. I have used a wide variety of Microsoft software 
and hardware since 1992. For the moderate amounts of money these 
items cost, I have received immense value. These products have made 
computing and use of the internet much more efficient and enjoyable. 
Instead of penalizing Microsoft, the U.S. Government and the 
American people should praise Microsoft for its many innovations, 
which have greatly improved American productivity and provided 
thousands of good high-tech jobs for Americans.
    The anti-trust case against Microsoft is ludicrous--to prove an 
anti-trust violation, the government must prove harm to consumers, 
and it has failed to do so. From personal experience, I know of no 
such harm. Besides, anyone who does not like Microsoft has always 
been free to buy Apple products. Thank you for your attention to my 
views.
    Sincerely,
    Harry E. B. Sullivan



MTC-00008099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First I offer my relevant credentials. My wife and I are retired 
residents of South Carolina, owners of 400 shares of Microsoft and 
users of Microsoft products in our home computer and previously in 
our careers.
    I am very grateful for the productivity gains Microsoft has 
given all sectors of our economy through the products it has made 
available to the consumers at what I believe have been reasonable 
prices. Microsoft was also a leader in providing products and 
systems that are both compatible and integrated for ease of use by 
the consumer.
    On the other hand, Microsoft was overzealous in pursuing market 
position in the past and the public has a right to expect some 
adjustment in Microsoft's behavior.
    I believe the settlement agreed to by nine states is fair and 
sufficient to control Microsoft's business directions in the coming 
years. I encourage the Justice Department to use its influence and 
power to bring the other nine states into agreement with the 
settlement as well.
    Thank you for your attention to my views.
    John E. Benecki



MTC-00008100

From: Connie Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a school board member of the McFarland School District. We 
are a small school district in Wisconsin and face a difficult time 
continuing to provide a world-class education because of climbing 
costs and a limited tax base. Funding for computers, hardware and 
internet access must be balanced with the other basic educational 
and staffing needs in our district.
    However, in order to help prepare our students for the jobs, 
businesses and the everyday world they will face after graduation, 
our district's ability to provide current technological equipment 
and training is essential. The proposed Microsoft settlement will 
help small schools districts like McFarland provide the technology 
our students need to meet the challenges they will face in the 
coming years. The settlement not only provides the technology, but 
also provides the training so teachers can effectively use the 
computers in the classrooms.
    Please support the proposed settlement which establishes an 
independent foundation to distribute technology funds, computers and 
software to those districts in the most need of these essential 
resources.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Connie Hutchison
    5608 Chestnut Lane
    McFarland, WI 53558
    (608) 838-3728



MTC-00008101

From: Francesco Gallo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft proposed settlement
From: Francesco P. Gallo
    216 Hitching Post Dr.
    Wilmington, DE 19803
To: CHARLES A. JAMES
    Assistant Attorney General
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    I would like to express my gratitude, as a small consumer of PC 
products, to the US Attorney Office that in few months has put the 
basis for an end to a saga that has attempted to destroy an industry 
leader for so many years, and certainly not favoring the consumers 
and the economy.
    Although I'm not a technician, I have perused the documentation 
on the Antitrust Case, and I'm very happy to express as consumer few 
comments for the Tunney Act.
    It seems appropriate that the remedies invoked by the Proposed 
Final Judgment and the Competition Impact Statement are a reasonable 
solution to this long war, giving competitors an opportunity to 
integrate products and forcing Microsoft to reveal its source code, 
without stopping Innovation. In addition, Microsoft would be under 
federal monitoring until 2008. It is time for the few States 
opposing this settlement to dedicate more of their resources to 
support the economy and the innovation that will enhance the 
productivity.
    Respectfully.
    Francesco P. Gallo
    CC:Francesco Gallo



MTC-00008102

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement of antitrust 
claims against Microsoft Corporation. As a retired lawyer, I believe 
that settlement of these claims is in the best interest of the 
taxpayers and the

[[Page 24986]]

American consumer. Far too much money has already been spent 
prosecuting questionable claims (although I suppose Judge Jackson's 
Order, to the extent upheld by the Court of Appeals, has laid to 
rest the questionability of these claims).
    I don't believe that the consumer was ever really damaged by any 
monopoly power wielded by Microsoft, nor do I believe that any 
competitors were seriously harmed by ``monopolistic practices'', if 
any, of Microsoft. Having a superior product is not against the law 
nor should it be. I seriously doubt that any true unregulated 
monopoly exists in the US today, nor has one existed here for a long 
time.
    It is time to move on to something that will truly make a 
difference in the lives of Americans and leave successful businesses 
alone.
    Robert G Currin, Jr,
    225 Springlake Rd,
    Columbia, SC 29206



MTC-00008103

From: Harold (038) Dorothy Clinesmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I feel that it is high time to settle this litigation 
and get on with business. It serves no purpose to keep chipping away 
at a company that has had such good success at innovations that make 
the computer easier to us by the average person. Why keep punishing 
a company that has done such a good job just because other companies 
didn't have the ability to do the same if they had had the expertise 
to do the same first. Lets get on with the business of being a 
country that rewards companies and people for doing things that 
helps the economy of this free country. Please end this as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Clinesmith



MTC-00008104

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my support of Microsoft and request a 
swift and fair completion to their litigation. I am both a consumer 
of Microsoft (MSFT) software and in a business that relies in part 
on MSFT's success. As a technology professional, I am keenly aware 
of the importance of fair competition in our field. Unfair 
competition or monopolistic behavior is very damaging to us as it 
slows the development and adoption process of new and better 
technologies. To this end, I support the prosecution of MSFT and the 
success the DOJ has had in getting MSFT to stop their unfair 
practices.
    On the other hand, there is an overwhelming danger to our 
industry if this settlement is drawn out or if the punishment is too 
severe. MSFT has created some of the best software products on the 
market today. They create millions of jobs and drive billions of 
dollars in the U.S. economy. My company and thousands of others are 
working with MSFT everyday to expand the technological lead the U.S. 
enjoys over other countries. I rely on them to be successful in 
selling their software so I can sell consulting services and make my 
own company profitable. Punishing them unfairly will hurt many 
innocent people, like myself and my employees.
    The settlement with MSFT should be focused on assuring they 
adhere to open standards for their software and open commercial 
arrangements for potential resellers or licensees of their 
technology. The technology industry in the U.S. has tried in vain 
for years to create a sanctioning organization that everyone 
subscribes to--fairly. If there is a single greatest opportunity for 
the DOJ to provide a legacy out this huge prosecutorial effort, it 
would be in the mandate for the creation of a technology standards 
council.
    Companies like MSFT, AOL, Oracle, SAP, HP, Sun, etc would all be 
required to be involved in and fund this organization. This would 
allow the technology industry to police itself with oversight by the 
government. Our economy has been hurt enough by recent events. Our 
industry is in its worst slump in 10 years. Please do what you can 
to reverse this decline, not make it worse.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas J. Brown
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00008105

From: William Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a shareholder of Microsoft as you might have guessed. I 
favor the settlement, of course.
    There is, however, another aspect which I find particularly 
disturbing. That is the transmission by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee to Judge Kotar-Kelly of the results of their hearings 
favoring modification. If ever there was inappropriate interference 
by the legislative with the judicial branch this is it. The threat 
that the Judge will not get a promotion to higher judicial office 
unless she follows their recommendation is palpable. I really hope 
you can do something about that.
    Bill Browning.



MTC-00008106

From: Ross, Joyce
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  12:22pm
Subject: MSFT
    Dear Sirs ... I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
is both reasonable and fair. We need to allow for innovative 
research and expect that the best will rise to the top.
    jross



MTC-00008107

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Clinton Administration's going after 
Microsoft was not a good thing to do. Microsoft is a very good 
company and has made many people successful in their business. Leave 
it alone. Let the settlement that has been agreed upon stand.
    Sincerely yours,
    Rosemary Cleland
    Bishop, Ca 93514



MTC-00008108

From: JR LONGMEIER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    THE SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT NEEDS COMPLETED AS SOON ASS 
POSSIBLE AND GET ON WITH BUSINESS. IF THE PREVIOUS A.G. HAD SPENT AS 
MUCH TIME HARASSING BIN LADEN AS IT IT DID BILL GATES, I THINK WE 
WOULD HAVE A BETTER WORLD TODAY.



MTC-00008109

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my support for the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. I think it represents an acceptable way to resolve the 
issues.
    Jeff Weed
    11320 Grenelefe Ave. N.
    White Bear Lake, MN 55110



MTC-00008110

From: Theodore Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The DOJ and majority of states have reached an agreement with 
regard to Microsoft. I believe this settlement was in the best 
interest of consumers and American business. We as Americans must be 
concerned about our global competitiveness and further litigation of 
this case will further increase the risk of damaging the competitive 
edge we have in computer software. Therefore, I strongly recommend 
proceeding with this settlement agreement.
    Theodore W Nelson
    2812 Shamrock Drive
    Allison Park, PA 15101



MTC-00008111

From: Jim Dowling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:38pm
Subject: Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting
    Enough is truly ENOUGH !! Let's move on and quit wasting my tax 
dollars as well as the tax dollars of other tax payers
    Sincerely,
    Jim Dowling



MTC-00008112

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft/ Settlement in the Courts under the Turney Act; 
The Contribution that Microsoft has made to the Computer Industry 
over the Years, has been phenomenal. Todays Computer expertise by 
millions would not have happened if there had not been a system that 
had

[[Page 24987]]

some continuity to it, and kept it as simple as possible.
    Therefore. I hope that the powers to be will accept the present 
settlement that is being offered, and get on with teaching more 
people to utilize the computer and its many many advantages. Please 
settle now, this has gone on for 4 years too many.
    Thank you for listening.
    D Noe.



MTC-00008113

From: Eddie Bunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The previous Clinton administration seemed to attack big 
business as bad for us private citizens when a lot of folks either 
work for those type of companies or related industries. They went 
after tobacco, they went after the firearms, and they went after 
Microsoft to name a few. They said they were doing it for us, but 
most Americans saw through this ruse and realized it was a way the 
politicians could bring in more money, through fines, to support 
their spending habits. It wasn't about us, it was about money, 
money, money for our government. Ultimately, it had a very real and 
negative effect on our economy... Enough is enough. When Microsoft 
was attacked, it seemed to mark the beginning of our economic 
downturn. I thought it then and I believe it now. Why? I'm not sure, 
but it falls under weakening consumer confidence. I don't work for a 
big company. I'm a small independent businessman. But my feeling is 
that the economy is trying to turn around and if this Microsoft case 
doesn't continue to drag on, and is settled soon, it will be a big 
boost to the American psyche which in turn will help consumer 
confidence. We sure could use that right now.
    W.E. Bunn



MTC-00008114

From: Jim Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice my opinion regarding the settlement. I 
think the settlement is tough but fair. I'm glad to see that this 
matter can be settled and that we can all just get back to the 
business of making this country a leader in the world. Get on with 
it and let the economy recover!



MTC-00008115

From: Barbara Winter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To: Department of Justice
    Re: Review period for Microsoft Antitrust case
    As a consumer of Computer software for 20 years, I wish to 
express my dismay that special interest groups-primarily Microsoft 
competitors-are attempting to derail the Court of Appeals settlement 
agreed upon in November of 2001. 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 interest.
    In the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to provide software 
developers the necessary access to the code that enables them to 
create programs that interact with Microsoft platforms. The new .NET 
platform has raised more excitement in world-wide software developer 
communities than any previous operating system, in large part 
because Microsoft is encouraging developers to innovate, and 
supporting them in that effort regardless of their allegiance or 
affiliations. This freedom to innovate is essential to American 
values. It's good for competition, good for consumers.
    Please take a balanced and fair look at how the proposed final 
settlement will affect CONSUMERS. That is the group anti-trust laws 
were meant to protect.
    Thank you,
    Barbara Winter
    13872 NE 60th Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    425-895-8836



MTC-00008116

From: Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:44pm



MTC-00008117

From: Chris Mayhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing this country needs at this point in time is a 
prolonged randomizing conclusion to the Microsoft anti-trust case--
let's finish it with the proposed settlement as it stands.
    After seeing how decisively the American public reacted to the 
horrific acts of September 11, do you (the DOJ) really think that 
the people of this nation would support Microsoft or any other 
company if we actually thought that their products were designed and 
built to our detriment? This must be a time of rebuilding, 
economically as well as spiritually, to show the terrorist community 
that they have not succeeded in their efforts. Further litigation 
against Microsoft would very likely lead to even more stagnation in 
the economic markets, and this would surely be viewed by some as a 
direct effect of the recent terrorist acts.
    Certainly people everywhere, and in particular in the United 
States, have become more productive through the use of Windows, the 
Internet, and software applications that run on the Windows 
operating system. To overlook this economic trend of the past 
decade, is a significant oversight.
    And finally, to anyone who has not developed software it is 
unthinkable that a manufacturer would release a new product, such as 
an operating system, that ``didn't work well'' in the marketplace--
it is an economically-driven decision with sharp competitors (such 
as AOL and Sun Microsystems in this case) doing all that they can to 
take that marketshare. The number of hours and test cases examined 
in order to be sure that Windows works well with all of the popular 
software products is staggering. Integrating software such as an 
internet browser with the operating system, as in this case, is done 
in order to raise the quality of the software. This occurs because 
common code that is shared between the two software applications 
only has to be written once, tested once, documented once, 
manufactured once, and sold once. If these same two applications 
were not integrated, all of these production facets are doubled. 
Eventually support costs double and the price of the software 
increases. It is hard to imagine how this latter approach is 
ultimately to the benefit of the American public.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Mayhall, Applied Digital Photography, LLC



MTC-00008118

From: Bill Gish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    With the job losses, Income losses for most citizens, Stock 
market down; it is time that when a settlement is reached, for it to 
be honored and the individuals who profit, who already have more 
income and assets than the average person stop prolonging the final 
settlement to enrich their pockets, get votes in their states, to 
hold offices that they are unable work and reach agreements with 
other government departments. Any system that can't reach an 
agreement is shorter time than this should refund their pay for 
ineffectiveness. People are losing faith in the over all government. 
The auto industry doesn't have compatible parts for interchanging 
with other autos, neither the appliance industry, or for that matter 
the human body. Every company tries to increase their market, look 
what your organization has allowed the Super Stores to do the small 
business person. Stop this delay now.
    William D. Gish



MTC-00008119

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft--Settlement
    THE PFJ IS RIDICULOUS. WHY LET THEM GET AWAY WITH PAST ABUSES 
AND GIVE THEM A DEFACTO GOVT APPROVED MONOPOLY GOING FORWARD???
    GWS



MTC-00008120

From: Phillip Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, Complete the Microsoft Settlement. Please settle with 
Microsoft to allow Microsoft and the whole electronics industry get 
on building their industry. Let the market place decide the winners 
and loser--NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

[[Page 24988]]

    Thanks,
    Phil Young
    San Diego, CA 92109



MTC-00008121

From: Alexandra Stocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Justice Department:
    Please end the litigation against Microsoft once and for all. As 
a taxpayer, consumer, and small business owner, I object to our 
government intervening in the free market and persecuting a company 
such as Microsoft, one of America's great success stories, whose 
only crime was to be too successful.
    Sincerely,
    Alexandra Stocker
    Alexandra Sanderson Stocker
    Principal
    Sanderson & Stocker, Inc.(R) (formerly Sanderson Capital)
    2333 N. Triphammer Rd. #201
    Ithaca, NY 14850
    (607) 257-5117



MTC-00008122

From: JD Loden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:52pm
Subject: Resolution
    Microsoft has made the technology industry more competitive, and 
has demanded that it's competitors achieve excellence. When the 
automobile was invented, could we've prevented car makers from 
designing cars with four wheels similar to the first car?
    Obviously we need a platform, and from this platform competitive 
products and services will surface.
    J.
    D. Comprehensive Business & Personal Financial Planning Services
    Naples, FL 941-430-0104, FAX 941-403-9987 EMAIL 
[email protected]
    Investments offered through Jefferson Pilot Securities 
Corporation-Concord, NH



MTC-00008124

From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust suit
    I feel this litigation has taken up valuable time and money and 
should have been over a long time ago.
    Microsoft have been a wonderful intivator. I do not see any gain 
for anyone in pursuing this case 1 day further.
    Judy Sawyer
    [email protected]



MTC-00008125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want to commend our government on finally putting this 
settlement behind us! I thing that Judge Jackson was way out of line 
with his decisions and I applaud the new judge who is showing some 
semblance of common sense!
    Nick Kozimor
    Mansfield, Ohio



MTC-00008126

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: msft settlement
    I think this settlement is fair & i congratulate doj for it.



MTC-00008127

From: Richard Beckert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hi, I am writting to express my support for the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I believe it is in the public interest, it 
addresses the monopoly maintenance charge upheld by the appelate 
court and it is fair and reasonable. While addressing the anti-
competitive behavior, the settlement still allows Microsoft to 
innovate and compete with other companies.
    In these tough economic times, this is one uncertainty that can 
be put behind us. Imposing tougher restrictions on Microsoft could 
cost more jobs and cause more uncertainty in the high tech industry. 
I believe this settlement is in the best interest of the consumers 
and the public. I only wish that all States could have been on board 
as oppose to holding out for their own self centered political 
gain!!
    Sincerely,
    Richard D. Beckert
    11620 127th. Ave. N.E.
    Lake Stevens, WA 98258
    (360)653-5464



MTC-00008128

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I would hope that Microsoft be allowed to pursue their efforts 
in developing cyberspace. Thay have done so much, and success should 
not deter them from marching forward in their plans to better this 
computer age.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected] Norma Korn



MTC-00008129

From: Charles A Schuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement



MTC-00008130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing to encourage the that all litigating states be 
required to accept the DOJ settlement with Microsoft.
    This case has drug on entirely too long and now is only hurting 
the economy. The states who are not accepting the settlement are 
politically motivated by Microsoft competitors in their respective 
states and are not considering the national interest.
    Sincerely,
    John T. Darling, DDS



MTC-00008131

From: BETH KEMMER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:58pm
Subject: settlement
    We should leave them alone!



MTC-00008132

From: Clyde Serda, CC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Why is the goverment ordering Microsoft to do just what they 
sued them for? Giving away software with each computer or giving 
away software to public schools. I still leaves out the consumer who 
purchased the software. if you can't get it right just drop 
it....Clyde Serda



MTC-00008133

From: Reve Carberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice,
    I believe it is in the interest of the public and the economy 
for the case against Microsoft to be settled as proposed in the 
agreement crafted with Microsoft by the federal government and nine 
states.
    Reve Carberry
    [email protected]
    www.carberrygroup.com
    914-277-1103



MTC-00008134

From: Douglas Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think your judgment was fair and just for all!



MTC-00008135

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD GET OFF MICROSOFTS 
BACK AND GET BACK TO GETTING THE ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK. THE STATES 
SAY THEY ARE DOING IT FOR THE CONSUMER,WELL I AM A CONSUMER AND I 
DON'T THINK THAT MICROSOFT HAS DONE ANYONE HARM. THEY ARE TRYING TO 
GET THE BEST PRODUCT TO THE PUBLIC BUT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES 
WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS.
    SETTLE THE CASE AND LET GET ON WITH BUSINESS.
    L. E. JACOBS,....CONSUMER



MTC-00008136

From: Jim Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    bold>It's time to settle this case and move on to something more 
important !/bold>



MTC-00008137

From: Elizabeth Grandy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:08pm

[[Page 24989]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2001
    I think it is about time this ridiculous lawsuit against 
Microsoft is settled once and for all. As far as the public is 
concerned Microsoft did not do anything detrimental to the public. 
The crybaby companies that cannot compete are just trying to get 
money from the best software company ever built. Companies like 
Microsoft should be free to make their product anyway they see fit. 
If the public want to buy the product they will and if not they 
won't. The only reason Microsoft has a monopoly is because they are 
the best and everyone wants their products (including the US 
Government!). This whole suit should have just been thrown out of 
court instead of costing Microsoft thousands of dollars in attorney 
fees and court cost and the taxpayer also. Please settle this with 
as little harm to Microsoft as possible. The suing states and 
companies should be the ones paying not Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Gary and Elizabeth Grandy



MTC-00008138

From: John Carey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    John L. & Patricia A. Carey
    4072 Penshurst Park, Sarasota, FL 34235 941-378-8666 
[email protected]
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter concerns the settlement that was reached earlier 
this fall in the Microsoft case. We think that it was a mistake for 
the case to have been brought about in the first place and, at this 
point, the settlement should be accepted, and the matter put to 
rest. No company should be penalized for creative thinking.
    This settlement punishes Microsoft more than enough. Microsoft 
will be forced to disclose information about the internal working of 
Windows, making it easier for computer companies to remove Microsoft 
programs and install similar programs from other software vendors. 
Microsoft will also be forced to streamline Windows so that other 
programs will run as well as their own in the operating system.
    Additionally, Microsoft will be obligated not to seek 
retribution on any of the firms that originally sued it.
    Finally, Microsoft will submit to oversight by a government 
committee to ensure that it complies with the terms of the 
settlement.
    Microsoft has agreed to all of these terms in order to shift its 
resources away from legal strategy. We hope that the settlement will 
be swiftly finalized and implemented.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John & Pat Carey



MTC-00008139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
    To Whom it may concern:
    I believe it is wrong for the government to attack private 
business. I also believe the Microsoft finding in mar/Apr of 2000 is 
directly responsible for the recession we are in now.
    Please quit pursuing this company. They have done nothing but be 
a great company, responsible for untold jobs in this country.
    Very Truly Yours
    Greg Loomer



MTC-00008140

From: Edwin(038)phyllis Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the government and microsoft should accept the terms of 
the settlement. if microsoft is indeed a monoply , we need more like 
it. where else can i get a product that me and my family enjoy and 
use at work and home every day, that last for years, and costs less 
than a hundred dollars.
    edwin evans
    631 ne washington
    lewistown,mt 59457



MTC-00008141

From: Mike Springer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Sirs:
    I have been an independent systems consultant for the last 20 + 
years. I have seen IBM screw its customers with predatory activities 
and with providing Products did not work very well at all. Yet they 
were left unscathed.
    Now you have an entrepreneurial company, Microsoft, that has 
attempted to make A product that is easy for the relatively 
unsophisticated end user that will provide him with all the tools to 
use his computer effectively. (That's more than IBM ever thought 
of).
    Yet, for their ability to meet the market effectively, you have 
persecuted them in the name of the people. Your track record is less 
than stellar in protecting the people. Would you like to revisit MCI 
and ATT. The courts broke up ATT and now we have very little logic 
In our phone systems. I can call someone from a pay phone and pay $7 
or $8 for a two minute call.
    That is working in the best interests of the consumer? I suggest 
NOT. Of should we talk about the tobacco settlement fiasco? Ask the 
people in your office over 50 years of age what the slang was for 
cigarettes. May be we called them ?cancer sticks? or even ?coffin 
nails?!
    That was over 50 years ago when I was a teenager. I knew they 
were deadly then. Let Microsoft due what they can to make end user 
use of computers more effective. Ultimately, That will benefit our 
society more than a bunch of restrictions and penalties will. Just 
get the government out of this mess without spending a ton more in 
our tax dollars. It would be far more beneficial for our tax dollars 
to go for paying our military, or replenishing our arms inventory.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Springer
    630-202-2921
    1800 East Denison Road
    Naperville, Illinois 60565



MTC-00008142

From: dinshah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear SIr,
    As the Federal Government and the state governments except nine 
states have agreed the settlement, the case should be decided on 
this settlement basis. To me it is not prudent to waste our 
resources at the time of the severe recession in US economy and 
World economy with unstable political climate.
    Thank You,
    Dinesh Shah



MTC-00008143

From: john tabar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:14pm



MTC-00008144

From: Bill Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please drop all of the lawsuits against Microsoft immediately. 
This has all been a bogus witchhunt from the start. Let us get on 
with trying to make money instead of spending time and money 
defending lawsuits that are already totally outdated by the speed of 
progress in the technology business.
    Bill Wallace
    Box 10354 Midland, Tx 79702



MTC-00008145

From: Thomas W. Culbertson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want doj to leave Microsoft alone.



MTC-00008146

From: larry schaffel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a proud American and Microsoft shareholder of long standing, 
I am highly distressed by the continuing effort by a small, self-
interested group of companies--of which, incidentally, I am also a 
shareholder, to continue harassing the efforts of Microsoft to 
continue innovating and providing a great service to the public and 
the economy as well as its shareholders. I urge those responsible to 
accept the recent settlement reached with the justice department and 
many states so that we can get the economy and technology industry 
back into a growth mode in 2002.



MTC-00008147

From: Irv Alpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    To quote Mark Da Cunha, is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the 
Department of Justice insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph 
Hitler who kills people in

[[Page 24990]]

concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts down a 
neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A predator is 
someone who initiates the use of physical force. Microsoft has 
pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case for predatory 
acts can be made against the Department of Justice-who seeks to 
violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its property--than 
for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is accused of.
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the 
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive 
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors. 
Free competition is not some Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal 
where all competitors end up with an equal market share of a given 
industry. Whether in sports, or in business, the whole point of 
competition is to beat your competitors-even to the point of having 
them going out of business. Bigness should not be confused with 
monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is not 
a crime.
    Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of 
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop 
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by 
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired 
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is 
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only 
governments possess.
    Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy 
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power 
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft 
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale 
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the 
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's 
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its 
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's 
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no 
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place. 
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you 
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS next April.
    Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away 
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when 
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's 
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the 
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes, 
but their rights are left untouched.
    Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the 
application of the political principle of individual rights to the 
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules 
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the 
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether 
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not 
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
    Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these 
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of 
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which 
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the 
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the 
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded 
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant 
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough 
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft 
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such 
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting 
burning coals into his eyes.
    By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of 
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws 
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's 
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property 
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the 
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as 
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of 
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple 
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a 
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic 
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute 
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade 
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it.
    From start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more 
than a process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as 
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of 
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan 
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history 
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``. . .the effective purpose, the 
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the 
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and 
efficient members of our society because they are productive and 
efficient.''
    The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator; 
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in 
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust 
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who 
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think 
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them 
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill 
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the 
American way of life: that of a free, moral, rational, capitalist 
society.
    Irv
    Irvine Alpert
    Founder, OnviaGuides
    Executive Vice President
    Onvia, Inc. (www.onvia.com)
    1260 Mercer Street
    Seattle, WA 98109
    (206) 373-9541 direct
    (206) 890-9471 mobile
    [email protected]



MTC-00008148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Only the public will be hurt by imposing harsh penalties on 
Microsoft. Microsoft has enabled users (individuals) to get the most 
out of their computers. The various states Attorney Generals are not 
thinking of computer users. Microsoft developed the software should 
not be penalized. It is a proprietary. Any other software 
manufacturer had this opportunity and, they still have the 
opportunities, to develop their own software. Hurting Microsoft will 
certainly not be in the best interests of the individual users.



MTC-00008149

From: raymondw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please do all you can to settle the Microsoft settlement as 
quickly as possible. In these trouble times we need to do what we 
can to move forward, and not tie up our resources in court battles. 
For the records, I do own Microsoft stock, but I use an Apple 
computer. Thanks Raymond Wolf



MTC-00008150

From: Troceen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement, and support this 
action being completed expeditiously.
    Dan Troceen



MTC-00008151

From: Augenstein, Rob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the anti-trust case against Microsoft for 
almost four years now and believe that Microsoft did nothing wrong. 
The bottom line is that consumers were not harmed. As a user of 
Microsoft products, and previously of Netscape Navigator, I actually 
benefited. When I was using Navigator, Netscape improved and 
expanded the product due to the competitive pressure from Microsoft. 
To make a switch in Internet browser compelling, Microsoft had to 
make their own improvements. Now that I've switched to Microsoft, I 
wouldn't go back to Netscape. What no one involved in this case 
seems to see is that people like me benefited because we had choices 
and the products available to us were improving at a rapid pace.
    It is not necessarily a bad thing if a company has monopoly 
power and then tries to use it. It is most certainly a good thing in 
fact if a broad base of consumers will benefit. Unfortunately, Judge 
Jackson did not see that people like me benefited from Microsoft's

[[Page 24991]]

actions. In fact, I have actually been harmed since the ruling by 
Judge Jackson. With Microsoft on the defensive, the pace at which 
significant new products have come to market has been slow. I think 
the browser was the latest new product genre--and that was 5 years 
ago. So I haven't had as much new software to play with as I did 
before. More importantly, the ruling initiated a long slide in the 
stock market that still continues. Since my investments in the stock 
market have declined in value, I have not made further investments 
in things for my family like a new car, house or computer. And since 
I believe that I am not the only one who has had this happen, I 
attribute our country's economic slowdown to the ruling by Judge 
Jackson against Microsoft.
    I am interested in seeing the economy get back off the ground 
and firmly believe that letting Microsoft pursue its free enterprise 
strategy of innovating with new products is in our country's 
economic interests, both domestically and internationally. I am 
hoping you will see things similarly and will move aggressively to 
stop the legal challenges aimed at Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Augenstein, CPA
    Lighthouse Group http://www.lighthousegroup.com
    http://www.lighthousegroup.com/>
    800.385.2511
    770.512.8990, extension 1015
    770.512.8991 fax



MTC-00008152

From: Blake Buzzini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express strong support for the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The 
proposed settlement is reasonable and fair and addresses the issues 
found by the Court of Appeals. I also urge you to dismiss the vocal 
minority of Microsoft competitors who seek to hobble the company 
permanently.



MTC-00008153

From: James Buzzanco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough! Microsoft is one of us. Bill Gates is not Osama Bin 
Laden! Microsoft is the philanthropic industrialist of our time. Our 
Country and world is better off because of it. Microsoft is the 
Einstein of our time. Enough already. Let's get on with life and 
progress in the United States as it should be. Don't stifle the 
progress of American Citizens. Microsoft is not just one of us, it 
is us. Enough!
    Sincerely,
    James P Buzzanco



MTC-00008154

From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This country was built upon the ability to spend time and effort 
to invent and develop new products and ideas. If this is not the 
case, we would not have patents, copyrights, etc. I believe we have 
provided enough time, effort and lawyers salaries , in developing 
the present settlement. This can drag out forever, as the breakup of 
Bell Telephone did in the last century. We do not need to duplicate 
that mistake in this century.
    Bill Williams



MTC-00008155

From: LJ Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Mircorsoft made the computer work for the commom person at a 
price we could afford they should not be punishied for this ``Stop 
the political blackmail'' LJSweet Taxpayer



MTC-00008156

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Doesn't the govt. have enough to do to protect the air 
travelling public and its office workers from airplanes used as 
bombs than frustrate one of the most dynamic companies in the 
world?? It appears to be a question of mixed priorities. The 
politicians grandstand at the public expense to ensure their own 
continuity. All that posturing on C-span is ludicrous.



MTC-00008157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement agreement reached in the 
Microsoft lawsuit. Please allow free enterprise to continue. No 
further litigation should be pursued.
    thank you. . . . . . . . .sharon doyle
    las palmas way
    sarasota, florida



MTC-00008158

From: nateandsandra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe that it is definitely in the best interest of the 
consumer for the case to be settled. We also feel that Microsoft has 
more than demonstrated a reasonable attitude and made every effort 
to settle this case, in the consumer's best interest. We are very 
tired of hearing all the complaints from Microsoft competitors and 
their special interest groups and in-turn the Attorney Generals from 
some states that seem to feel that it is their job to side with 
Microsoft competitors. We feel that the Microsoft competitors have 
the same opportunity in the USA as all businesses. They need to work 
a little harder, hire bright, and innovative employees and stop 
whining all the time.
    Let's get on with getting the economy back on track. Stop 
punishing companies for hard work, brains, and innovation.
    Thank you,
    Nate and Sandra Ribelin



MTC-00008159

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIR,
    CAN THE NATION AFFORD TO ``FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS'' IN THE 
MICROSOFT CASE? SURE, COMPETITORS SHOULD GET A SHOT AT THE BRASS 
RING, BUT SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE CHOOSING WINNERS AND LOSERS AS 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS EVOLVE?
    THE RACE TO THE NEXT LEVEL WILL BE ``TEMPORARILY'' HELD BY THE 
COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL WITH THE MOST AGGRESSIVE MARKETING METHODS AND 
THE MOST INNOVATIVE PRODUCT, AND THAT POSITION WILL BE HELD SECURELY 
ONLY AS LONG AS IT APPEALS TO CONSUMERS POCKET BOOKS AND COMMON 
SENSE.
    MICROSOFT WENT ONE STEP FURTHER. THE FOUNDERS OF MICROSOFT 
IDENTIFIED THE ONE THING MISSING FROM EARLY PERSONAL COMPUTERS. A 
``STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM'' THAT COULD BE USED AS A PLATFORM FOR 
FUTURE GROWTH WAS A ``MUST HAVE'' ITEM. MICROSOFT EXPLOITED THE IDEA 
OF A STANDARD OPERATING SYSTEM. EVOLUTION AND ADDITIONS WOULD APPEAL 
TO CONSUMERS WHO WANTED A COMPUTER TO DO THINGS FOR THEM EASIER THAN 
THE WAY THEY DID THE TASK AT PRESENT. THUS, THE MASS APPEAL FOR THE 
PC WAS CREATED, ALONG WITH AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY TO SERVE THE DEMAND 
FOR MORE AND MORE FEATURES AND FASTER AND FASTER SPEEDS.
    A WHOLE INDUSTRY DEPENDS ON THE STANDARDS. CONSUMERS SIGHED WITH 
RELIEF! AT LAST THE COMPUTER COULD BE UPGRADED EASILY. ACTUAL WORK 
COULD BE DONE. HOW MARVELOUS! MICROSOFT RESPONDED TO THE DEMAND BY 
LOOKING THE OTHER WAY WHEN BOOTLEG COPIES WERE ADDED TO OTHER 
MACHINES. CREATING A STANDARD WAS THE KEY TO FUTURE SUCCESS. LET THE 
BOOTLEGGING CONTINUE. ALONG THE WAY MORE FEATURES WERE ADDED AS PART 
OF THE PACKAGE (BUNDLING), AND CONSUMERS LOVED IT. WALMART DOES THE 
SAME THING AND CONSUMERS LOVE IT!
    WHY DO THEY LOVE IT? SIMPLE, IT'S CHEAPER!! MARKETS WORK THAT 
WAY. SO WHY MUCK IT UP?



MTC-00008160

From: Sue Shannon-Biddiscombe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I want to see this case settled immediately and with as little 
disruption to Microsoft as possible. Microsoft has not taken 
advantage of consumers; on the contrary, Microsoft has always 
provided the best products and progressively lower prices. Frankly, 
if I turn on a computer and do not see the Microsoft logo, I will be 
very concerned about what I am getting myself into. It only makes 
sense to have a standard software so computers can communicate. The 
last thing this country (and World) needs is several different 
platforms. Deregulation is not working to consumer advantage in 
telecommunications or utilities. Sometimes it makes sense to have 
uniform service.

[[Page 24992]]

    Sincerely,



MTC-00008161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    --I am a firm beleiver in free enterprise system. The goverment 
has a right to watch the adventures of large compnaies to insure our 
competiveness. I do not want the goverment to take over the running 
of the system as a whole.We need companies that are adventureses. 
The system of private entrepnreship is the best for the United 
States. Ask any one in the goverment run venture.
    Thank you
    Jim Ryan.
    James Ryan Email: [email protected]
    New Mexico State Univ. Voice: 505-646-1641
    Box 30001, MSC 3545 Fax: 505-646-1253
    Las Cruces, NM 88003



MTC-00008162

From: Richard H. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello: I am a Microsoft user of many products. Specifically, 
WindowsXP, WindowsME, OfficeXP . I have been a Microsoft software 
user since I started using a PC--back in 1991.
    I feel that my use of a computer has been greatly enhanced by 
the Microsoft Operating Systems and other compatible software. I 
think that it is competitively priced and think that my computing 
experience would be greatly LESSENED if there was not a company such 
as Microsoft that offered excellent functionality and compatibility.
    The number of software offerings that DO NOT talk to each other 
(compatibility) would have seriously damaged the business workplace 
and greatly increased costs.
    Microsoft, for all of its faults, which are few in comparison to 
other large companies--provides Industry Standards so critical to 
anyone using a PC.
    I would like to know what remedies AOL is under in not making 
their Email and Instant messaging software compatible with the 
majority of the industry? AOL clearly has the market share in the 
Online Subscriber area--Where are the ``government encouragements'' 
for AOL to join in an industry standard?
    The tremendous cost of litigation for Microsoft, The Federal 
Government, The States should indicate that it is time to close this 
chapter soon. It is hard to see how the consumer has been harmed by 
the invention of integrated WORKING software that is very 
competently supported (technically).
    Lets get on with productive endeavors--the introduction of new 
products and the encouragement of innovation and not hamper one of 
the most successful and profitable AMERICAN companies.
    Thank you



MTC-00008163

From: Richard A. Arrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a patent attorney and a Microsoft product user. I am glad 
that the Federal Government finally settled with Microsoft. I think 
that the settlement should go through and we should let Microsoft 
get back to improving their products and making the competition 
improve theirs.
    Richard A. Arrett, Esq.
    Vidas, Arrett & Steinkraus, P.A.
    6109 Blue Circle Drive
    Suite 2000
    Minnetonka, MN 55343-9185
    USA
    Phone: (952) 563-3000
    Facsimile: (952) 563-3001
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00008164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:32pm
Subject: On Microsoft..
    Attn: USDOJ
    As a taxpaying citizen I would like to say I'm dissapointed that 
all this effort is being placed to investigate an honest company 
such as Microsoft. It has broken no laws. Microsoft's competitors 
are only upset that they have been beaten in the business market. 
They can't compete against Microsoft so now they want the US to 
control Microsoft in order to level the playing field. The playing 
field was already fair, and they lost.
    Please allow Microsoft to continue running the company as it has 
done, without violating any laws, which ultimately benefits the 
people.
    Don't allow this to continue.
    Thank You,
    Sam Torres



MTC-00008165

From: Brett and Angela Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ representitive,
    I would like to voice my opinion as an ``average consumer'' 
concerning the antitrust stettlement with Microsoft. I work in the 
computer industry developing new servers and PCs for a major 
computer manufacturer, and I have been using computers for over 12 
years (ever since the days of 9600 baud modems and BBS's). Obviously 
I have seen a lot of changes over the years in our industry.
    Having said that I will make my observations concerning 
Microsoft and the antitrust case. Microsoft has put out some great 
software over the years, but it is painfully obvious that their 
focus has shifted from designing great software for the industry to 
designing software that garners more money, power, and influence 
over the industry. I remember the days when the software industry 
flourished with creativity and unique ideas from many different 
companies. I was always excited about the newest titles and ideas 
that were being put forth year to year. Microsoft was at their best 
in this environment, and it would be unfair to say that they did not 
contribute to the boom of the PC industry around the world.
    Unfortunately Microsoft's business practices have also done a 
severe injustice to both America and the computer industry at large: 
Their unchecked monopoly power has stifled the creativity and 
competitive environment that they thrived in. Their continued 
bundling of Microsoft only software is no longer helpful to the 
consumer, but in fact it serves to limit choice and crush 
competition before it even starts.
    As an example, when CNET recently reviewed browsers on their 
website (www.cnet.com), they graded Opera, Netscape, and Internet 
Explorer on several fronts: ease of installation, feature set, 
usability, etc.. Internet Explorer won the comparision, but what is 
interesting is that CNET concluded that it was basically a tie 
except for 2 facets: Internet Explorer comes preloaded on PCs so the 
installation was therefore easiest and cleanest, and its integration 
with the OS made it much more stable. I say that is unfair. 
Microsoft's mantra is that ``integration is innovation and is good 
for the consumer''. If that is the case, then why don't they 
integrate MS Office, since that is the most useful feature set for 
the user outside of the OS itself? I'll tell you why, because they 
would loose $300 per license on the Office Suite.
    So why is it ok to integrate Internet Explorer, Messenger, 
Passport, Media Player? Because they have direct competition in 
these areas (i.e. Netscape, AOL Messenger-ICQ-Yahoo Messenger, and 
Real Media Player to name the obvious ones). Microsoft must not be 
allowed to use their OS platform monopoly to undercut their 
competition like that!
    It is my strong opinion that Microsoft neither regrets, nor 
intends to change, their business tactics or their corporate 
behavior. It is also my opinion that the proposed settlement plays 
right into Microsoft's hand--that they will be able to skate around 
the words and ambiguities in the agreement to maintain their status 
quo, and therefore their monopoly. I am sad to see that the 
possibility exists that they will get off ``scott free''. For what 
its worth, I think they should be held to the carpet and made to see 
the error of their practices. I propose Microsoft be required to do 
the following:
    1) Offer a stripped down version of Windows at a much cheaper 
price, and allow OEM computer makers to bundle whatever they want 
with the OS at the Factory Level.
    2) Be required to share APIs and protocols that a competitor 
would need to know in order to develop a stable competitive product. 
Microsoft should also not be allowed to ``tweak'' their OS in such a 
way that it ``accidentally'' breaks competing software titles.
    3) They need to be publicly convicted of their behavior! 
Examples are VERY necessary, and if we don't punish Microsoft's 
behavior then other industry players will follow their ``example'' 
of success.
    Do we really want that?
    In conclusion, I respectfully ask that we please uphold the law 
and punish them for the violations that they have committed. Only 
then will creativity flourish again in our industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Brett Wharton.

[[Page 24993]]



MTC-00008166

From: Sean Flynn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern regarding the matter of United States v. 
Microsoft Settlement,
    In general I believe the terms of the agreement are fair and 
just. It should be noted that NO other company in this industry 
provides the levels of access to source code and API's as defined in 
this agreement. This includes the Java platform which unfairly has 
been described as a ``community'' of vendors. The Java platform is a 
significant competitor to Microsoft and is a proprietary 
implementation that falls under the sole discretion of Sun 
Microsystems in how it is used and by whom it is disclosed to.
    Two significant factors should be examined when considering the 
fairness of this agreement: the merits of the original case made to 
the courts and the current climate of competitiveness. On the first 
point the main case against Microsoft was concerning the 
anticompetitive actions against Netscape. Upon examining the history 
of Netscape one can easily see that it was purchased by a 
significant competitor of Microsoft, AOL, and then purposely 
dismantled the company to prevent it from effectively competing. It 
should be noted that Netscape, after the purchase by AOL, did not 
release a major version of their browser until just a few months ago 
after the Microsoft verdict was overturned on appeal. Obviously it 
was in AOL's best interest to show that Netscape was harmed by 
Microsoft so they purposely prevent the product from moving forward. 
On the second point the computer operating systems marketplace is 
extremely competitive. Depending on how you distort the figures you 
can make them say anything you want them to. The normal statistic 
quoted it that 95% of the operating systems run on Intel PC 
processors is Microsoft. If you broaden this to say what operating 
system do most end users interact with: IBM mainframe OS's. If you 
look at what operating system most transactions are processed on: 
IBM mainframe OS's. If you look at what most Internet sites and 
applications run on: UNIX. When you look at the whole computer field 
you can easily see that the it is a very competitive environment.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Sean Flynn



MTC-00008167

From: Earl Helbig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all the important matters facing our nation, it is time we 
act on a Microsoft settlement that favors innovation and protects 
competition. Dragging out this settlement is not in the national 
interest. Let us have closure at once.
    Sincerely,
    Earl G. and Ruth E. Helbig



MTC-00008168

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:35pm
Subject: microsoft
    the agreement between microsoft and the doj should let stand. 
the country is in a rfecession now and perhaps the agreed settlement 
could hel0p to allow everybody to get back to work and the doj to 
tackle more meaningful cases. i knows a lot of people and all with 
computers and i have never heard,not one, complain that windows 
software was too high. i don't know where that came from.
    yours very truly,
    philip damner.



MTC-00008169

From: Paul F. Poelker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The agreement reached between Microsoft, the nine states 
involved, and the Federal Government addressed in the Court of 
Appeals ruling should be ACCEPTED.
    It is time to stop any further litigation in this case and 
finalize the above mentioned agreement.
    Paul F. Poelker
    Dallas, TX



MTC-00008170

From: Linda Welshons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this destructive and unjustified lawsuit now. 
Microsoft has done nothing to harm customers. They enjoy popularity 
because their products work and are inexpensive. Their competitors 
want to charge high prices and are fighting to protect them. This 
suit does not serve the American people. It is a waste of our tax 
dollars and it is destructive to the economy.
    Linda Welshons



MTC-00008171

From: Valda Redfern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sir,
    Microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has EARNED its 
``monopoly''. Nobody has ever been forced to buy Microsoft products; 
every single one of Microsoft's millions of customers chose to buy 
them. You can get computers that don't come bundled with MS--I used 
to use them all the time in my work. If most people prefer computers 
that do come bundled with MS, that's because Microsoft offers them a 
value.
    If the government of its own country, the freest in the world, 
continues to victimise it, what hope will Microsoft have in Europe?
    Yours truly,
    Valda Redfern
    17 St Laurence Road
    Bradford on Avon UK BA15 1JQ



MTC-00008174

From: Espey, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that ANY settlement against Microsoft is just. 
In fact, I believe if anything the US government owes reparations to 
Microsoft for the damage that was caused over the past year and a 
half. Bill Gates should be revered as our greatest man, not spit on 
and insulted at the behest of jealous and less wealthy billionaires 
(Larry Ellison, Steve Case, Scott McNealy, et al).
    Thank you for your time and consideration
    John Espey



MTC-00008175

From: Matthew Ballin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please defend the free market by not persecuting Microsoft for 
being more successful than its competitors. America has risen to 
greatness by leaving the talented and productive alone to do what 
they do best; an attack against Microsoft is an attack against our 
founding principles.
    Regards,
    Matthew Ballin



MTC-00008176

From: Norm Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write in support of the current settlement agreement between 
the US DOJ and Microsoft. Please defend it assiduously against 
further corrosion by the judge(s) and/or the remaining states 
attorneys general.



MTC-00008177

From: Auren Hoffman (BridgePath)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Though I am a huge believer in free markets, I do not believe 
the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) is a the best solution. Microsoft 
is a wonderful company staffed by wonderful people, but they are 
guilty of some very grave anti-competitive violations. Moreover, the 
PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for its 
remedies.
    Best,
    Auren Hoffman CEO, BridgePath Corporation
    Auren Hoffman BridgePath
    http://www.bridgepath.com/>
    463 Bryant Street, 2nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94107
    dir: 415-946-6019
    The BridgePath Exchange enables staffing firms to monetize 
unfilled job orders and unplaced candidates
    CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov'



MTC-00008178

From: John Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The attached article I wrote to illustrate my concern for the 
Microsoft suit. Please read it and include it in the record of the 
public comments.

[[Page 24994]]

    Thanks
    John E. Arnold
    John E. Arnold
    2521 SW Pepperwood Ct Topeka, KS 66614
    Mr. Walter Mossberg WSJ via email: [email protected]. Re: The 
Microsoft Case I read your column regularly and usually enjoy what 
you offer. I wrote this piece a bit ago on the Microsoft Case as my 
perspective. I'm moved to send it to you after your piece today on 
Microsoft costing consumers. I don't think so.
    The U.S. Justice Department in its zeal to protect the anti-
trust laws has destroyed about two trillion dollars worth of the 
nation's economy. It has done more damage than Castro, Saddam 
Hussein, global warming, and the last five hurricanes. Defenders of 
the Justice Department will say, ``Yeah, right. Those stocks were 
over priced.'' Those need to recall that the Great Depression was 
caused, historians and economists uniquely agree, by the actions of 
the U.S. regulators misjudging their actions' impacts. The Justice 
Department is wrong and wrong-headed on the issue. Microsoft has, 
arguably more than any other firm, made the so-called New Economy, 
and brought unparalleled economic health to the country. Moreover it 
has made the use of the computer seamless.
    Contrast Microsoft with the AT&T breakup. I had the joy of 
starting a new agency in 1986, just after the breakup of AT&T and 
the creation of all the entities necessary to get phone service. 
Where before that you called ``the phone company'' and ordered 
``phones and phone service and maintenance,'' afterwards you called 
the phone company and could get only local service. When you asked 
for long distance, they said you have to call someone else. 
Surprised, you asked who to call, who was out there? You were told, 
``I can't tell you that.'' When you asked about phones, you were 
told you had to go somewhere else. But again, they couldn't tell you 
where. Maintenance of the lines? Somewhere else.
    So while before we had a seamless, wonderfully efficient phone 
system, all bundled together, afterwards we had to become 
knowledgeable about phones, knowledgeable about long distance, 
knowledgeable about maintenance of lines, knowledgeable about all 
the disparate pieces. It no longer was easy and quick. It will be 
worse with an unbundled Microsoft.
    Think of the complexity if Microsoft had not bundled operating 
system with software with Internet connections. I had an early 
microcomputer. Not all the software was compatible with it. I had to 
become knowledgeable of arcane details I wasn't interested in 
learning, and this was a simple machine. I wanted to spend my time 
using the machine, as a productivity tool. As the PC has progressed 
and the seamlessness has progress--largely through Microsoft's 
efforts--I am more and more able to use my time the way I want--in 
applications. I don't want to have to go to one store for my 
computer, another for my operating system, another for my software--
which may not work with other software--and another for the Internet 
connection.
    That's a wrong-headed approach, a step backward from 
productivity. In fact, I think no judge, attorney, or justice 
working on the case should be allowed to do so unless they are the 
systems operator of the computer of their family or office, and 
routinely add software, software upgrades, and computer 
enhancements. No one who doesn't know firsthand the complexity of 
determining which component of the mix of hardware, middleware, and 
software is the incompatible one can say that forced unbundling is a 
good idea.
    Incredibly, I heard Judge Jackson interviewed on NPR and he said 
he didn't know what kind of operating system his computer at home 
had. He said it wasn't a Mac. The interviewer was incredulous and so 
was I that the man we allowed to make the most critical judgment on 
the integrated operating system and the industry had so little 
knowledge.
    In fact, most attorneys in my experience do not even do their 
own keyboarding. They rely on dictation or hand written legal pads. 
None who do business that way are sufficiently grounded in the 
technology to be involved in the case.
    Many have written articles offering evidence that the Justice 
Department is on the wrong track. The evidence of pricing: a 
monopoly would have raised the prices, and the evidence is clear the 
prices of software and of operating systems and of computers have 
declined. That early computer I bought cost me $2,000. It had less 
power than today's Hewlett Packard calculator. Today we can buy a 
personal computer with power of a 1975 Cray machine (which the U.S. 
government prohibited from being sold to a foreign nation as an 
issue of national security) for less than $1,000, some less than 
$500. That's not the workings of a monopoly and the Justice 
Department and the Judge must not be seeing clearly as theses 
impacts are relevant.
    Byte editor Jerry Pournelle recounted the competitive wars and 
the bad business decisions made by the competitors of Microsoft, 
when they were strong and Microsoft was weak, allowing the Microsoft 
innovations to make inroads into markets others had sewn up, the 
better product beating out the inferior. That's what innovation and 
creativity in an atmosphere of freedom is supposed to do. Microsoft 
was inconsequential to IBM and to Apple and they didn't surpass 
either by monopoly tactics but by building products that served 
consumers. Pournelle pointed out several products that commanded the 
market and failed to take advantage of it, while Microsoft built a 
better one. VisiCalc was the spreadsheet lead (it was on the first 
computer I bought), then Lotus 1-2-3 had the lead and let it slip, 
and now Excel is dominant, as is Word, having innovated beyond Word 
Pro, WordStar, Wordperfect and others.
    Attacking Microsoft for its successes as excesses of power is 
just plain factually wrong. And it's wrong-headed. I hope you find 
that of some use.
    Sincerely,
    John Arnold



MTC-00008179

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    It is about time that the federal government reached an 
agreement with Microsoft. American economy need to move forward, 
continued lawsuit against Microsoft is counterproductive to the 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Hikaru Okubo, PE



MTC-00008180

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's roll. Settle the Microsoft Court litigation. I agree with 
the law as stated in the Tunney Act.
    Barbara Reinoehl



MTC-00008181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft Alone! Lets put our energies into creating not 
destroying. Lets get to work on helping everyone in the world get 
connected. There are universes of technology waiting to be 
discovered.
    Beverly Sky
    http://www.beverlysky.com



MTC-00008182

From: Mildred Weiner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:51pm
Subject: Netscape Litigation
    Good Luck!
    VTY MMW



MTC-00008183

From: John Ritchie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft got its start in inovation and is contionous in these 
veins to build a strong company. Why must costly and unnessary 
leagal actions persist, even after bush administration and fedral 
government has endorsed the completion of this juducial wrangaling. 
Please for the world, nation, states, company, and mostly for the 
high cost that consumers will pay stop this wastful investigation! 
This matter will only give money to a handful of lawyers and hope to 
further the careers of some prosicutors who hope to use this as a 
platform from which to aide their political ambitions. It has grown 
time to resolve and rebuild not wound and drive at the very heart of 
U.S. economic strienght, where market influence can and will over 
time reduce this to a non-issue. Please urge all states to have a 
hands off approch to this matter. In hopes that these comments can 
help you decide.
    John B. Ritchie
    Carlisle, MA. 01741



MTC-00008184

From: Jeff Hatfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  l:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 24995]]

    Greetings,
    I wish to express my view that the Microsoft Corporation is 
right and the U.S. government is wrong in its Antitrust case.
    It is my opinion that the U.S. government should stop wasting my 
tax dollars to persecute Microsoft's alleged ``Antitrust'' 
violation. Antitrust is just a means for envious politicians to cut 
down successful businesses that supply the public with goods that 
are in popular demand. Antitrust is a throwback to a fabian 
socialistic era that sacrificed the demands of the consumers to the 
demands of the politicians. Any settlement terms are a compromise of 
the right to the wrong. That is if you believe that a free market is 
right... If I were Bill Gates, I would ``settle'' this case by 
offering to close down Microsoft, instead of prostrating myself to 
the incompetent.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Hatfield
    P.O. Box 2151
    Windermere, Florida 34786



MTC-00008185

From: Quinn Woodworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:56pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    The anti-trust assault on Microsoft is immoral and anti-
American. The government is attempting to punish Microsoft for the 
same moral values that have helped make America the beacon of the 
world: hard work, creativity, achievement. Unlike kings of the past 
and governments of the present, Microsoft has acquired its wealth--
not by confiscation--but by production, by creating products that 
people want to buy. Politicians have been bought by Microsoft's 
competitions to bring suit against Microsoft. Since they are unable 
to compete fairly then they resort to gaining political pull. Then 
government pawns can cripple their opponent for them. That's what 
this anti-trust suit against Microsoft is all about. It has nothing 
to do with serving the public. If the government truly was 
interested in the public good, it would leave Microsoft alone and 
the government would stop interfering by ``regulating'' business. 
All the government does is cripple some business so their 
competitors can take over.
    The anti-trust suit should be abolished.
    Microsoft should be left alone.
    Quinn Woodworth



MTC-00008186

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are sick and tired of Senator Hatch and his Utah competitors 
of Microsoft make Microsoft and the government spend so much time on 
this issue. After all microsoft has done all the work to bring this 
computer business to so many millions of people around the world 
that to let these politicians keep this issue alive is a travisty. 
Only the nasty lawyers get anything out of it. And our government 
looks stupid!
    Very truly yours,
    Mr. Richard FitzSimmons



MTC-00008187

From: vince duschean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: micrsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern at the justice department. Please settle 
the suit you have with microsoft as you have outlined. The only 
advantage continuing this or other suits against Microsoft goes to 
other non-performers in the software business like SUN-Micro systems 
and Oracle who have not delivered and continue to blame others for 
their failures.



MTC-00008188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:52pm
Subject: Settlement
    I firmly believe that this whole Microsoft thing has gone on too 
long. Since the government and nine states have come to a 
settlement, I see no reason to drag this whole thing on.
    Our country has bigger problems that trying to crucify one 
corporation. Let the government's decision stand and put this matter 
to rest.
    Jo Ann Feikes
    Las Vegas, NV



MTC-00008189

From: Dick Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  12:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in agreement with the microsoft settlement. Let's not waste 
any more government money on this matter.
    R.F.Jensen



MTC-00008190

From: Ricky Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking as a private citizen on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, I strongly support the DOJ's proposed settlement and 
urge all concerned to accept it as the final arbitration of the 
dispute in question.
    Ricky Morris, MCSE Microsoft Small Business Server Support,
    Las Colinas, TX
    * 469-775-7290 (Direct Line)
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00008191

From: Bruce Rogovin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing regarding the proposed settlement between Microsoft 
and The US Dept. Of Justice.
    I find it totally unacceptable to not put Microsoft in a 
position where it is unable to pursue the immoral and unethical 
business practices that it has shown itself prone to. I read the 
findings of fact that were released by the judge months ago, and was 
dumbfounded that any company could get away with the actions that 
Microsoft took. Anyone involved with the case should re-read these 
statements of fact that show Microsoft as a monopolistic predator 
with almost unlimited power. A viewing of the video taped 
depositions of Bill Gates would convince anyone of the 100% sleaze 
of Gates and Microsoft. They will do anything to increase their 
power if left unchecked.
    Please take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation. 
Microsoft should be broken into smaller companies that do not have a 
death grip on the tech market. If this is too drastic, at least do 
something that makes a difference and restores competition.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected]
    Dr. Bruce Rogovin
    8686 Winton Rd.
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45231



MTC-00008192

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:58pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, BILL GATES WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE A VERY 
USEFUL COMMUNICATIONS TOOL TO VERY LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WORLD 
WIDE. THE SAYING IS SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T 
SEEN THAT HAPPEN IN PAST YEARS.
    I'M VERY THANKFUL TO BILL. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE COMPUTER BUT 
MANAGE TO GET AROUND WITH THE BASICS. THE COMPUTER HAS PROVIDED ME 
MANY HOURS OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.
    THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A TOUGH TIME MANAGING ITS SELF, SO IT 
SHOULDN'T TAKE ON OTHER COMPANIES. ENOUGH TAXPAYERS' MONEY HAS BEEN 
SPENT ON THIS CASE MAKING ATTORNEYS SUPER RICH. HOW ABOUT WE FEED 
AND CLOTH THE POOR?
    THANK YOU,
    DRUE



MTC-00008193

From: Otto Dieffenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Seems about right. Now lets get on with the economy!



MTC-00008194

From: Melinda York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:00pm
    Settlement is good do it now. Enough time and money has been 
wasted on all this needless litigation. Imagine in the one country 
in the world where creativity and imagination can lead the way to 
tremendous development of new technology and creation of jobs for 
people, where the government is going after and murdering and 
stifling one of the largest and most successful companies of its 
kind. Leave Microsoft alone so it can continue to create jobs and 
new technology in the world and especially in the US where we need 
it now. Get off their back and let us recover this weak and sad 
economy. YOU the government are using my money for the wrong things.
    Thank you.

[[Page 24996]]



MTC-00008196

From: David Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to use the public comment period 
regarding the Microsoft Settlement to comment as follows.
    1/Discharge AOL Complaints: With reference to the 1995 case of 
AOL vs Microsoft regarding bundling of the MSN on-line service with 
Windows 95, AOL claimed that this bundling would make it difficult 
for AOL to succeed in the on-line market, and so it was anti-
competitive. The case was overturned. Since 1995, AOL has achieved 
approximately 80% market share, and built profits that enabled them 
to acquire Netscape and Time-Warner (one of the largest mergers of 
all time). Therefore, it's clear that bundling MSN with Windows 95 
was not anti-competitive.
    AOL's role as an injured party in the current Microsoft case is 
disingenuous. In fact, history shows that after MSN was bundled with 
Windows 95, on-line services became more pervasive, companies like 
AOL boomed, and consumers obtained services more easily because 
connectivity infrastructure was included with Windows. The pervasive 
nature of this infrastructure in Windows made it possible for a 
generation to participate in the ?internet revolution?, which 
yielded significantly greater consumer benefits than the closed 
nature of (for example) AOL, MSN, and CompuServe, as these existed 
in 1995.
    2/Discharge Netscape Complaints: I understand that the current 
case against Microsoft is based on a complaint that Netscape's 
browser market was damaged by the bundling of Internet Explorer with 
Windows, and that this was not in the public interest.
    In fact, Netscape's browser (Navigator) was free (like Internet 
Explorer), so the business that may have been damaged was non-
existent. If Netscape chose to base their market on a zero-price 
commodity, that's bad management on their part, not Microsoft's 
fault. AOL now bundles Netscape Navigator as part of their service, 
which is clearly in consumers? interests, just as the bundling of IE 
with Windows.
    If such bundling had not taken place, it's believable that the 
?internet revolution? may have been delayed, as people would have 
been required to purchase separate pieces of software, and figure 
out significant technical complexities in order to go on line. Not 
having a browser in the internet age is like having a car without an 
engine ? the Internet would be useless. Therefore, it's unthinkable 
that a software company with vision and leadership would NOT bundle 
a browser as a fundamental base technology. Obviously Microsoft's 
actions benefited consumers, and did not damage any then-existing 
revenue stream for other companies. On the contrary, Microsoft made 
a contribution to the entire US economy by helping to drive 
connectivity and Internet browsing as base functionality available 
to all consumers.
    3/Discharge ?Monopolistic behavior? complaints: In 1991 I worked 
for Chevron (oil company) and attended a forum for the top customers 
of the Lotus Corporation (spreadsheet software vendor). At the time, 
Microsoft Excel and Word had negligible share in a market dominated 
by Lotus 123 and WordPerfect, and Microsoft was trying to encourage 
all software vendors to produce applications with a graphical user 
interface (GUI), to make it easier for consumers to use their 
software.
    At this 1991 forum, Mr Manzi, then Lotus CEO, gave a keynote 
speech in which he spent 45 minutes explaining why users did not 
need a GUI, and why Lotus would not have a Windows version of their 
spreadsheet. He was followed by Mr Peterson, then CEO of WordPerfect 
Corporation, who presented almost the same speech about why 
WordPerfect users did not need a GUI.
    Obviously, both these companies were wrong about what their 
consumers required. The fact that Microsoft Excel and Word have 
replaced Lotus and WordPerfect as market leaders is a result of bad 
business management, and wrong strategic decisions by Microsoft's 
competitors. It is not due to monopolistic behavior, as Microsoft 
did not have a monopoly in spreadsheets or wordprocessors. The 
success of Excel and Word is became these are superior products, not 
because of behavior that makes Microsoft a threat to the public 
interest.
    Conclusion: While it's true that Microsoft is an aggressive 
company, I cannot understand why their vision, commitment, and 
resulting success should be held against them. Windows has 
approximately 80% of the operating system market. Logically, this 
means that Windows should get credit for 80% of the success in 
making computers pervasive, and the resulting benefits to consumers 
and the US economy. The only entities that could benefit if the 
Microsoft Settlement is overturned are a small number of companies 
that compete with Microsoft. I am convinced that these companies 
have their own management to blame for any perceived lack of 
success, and in many cases (like AOL/Netscape), they are actually 
more successful as a result of Microsoft's market position.
    Please resist the self interests of the companies that complain 
against Microsoft, and consider the enormous progress that has been 
made in consumer-oriented computing in the past few years while 
Microsoft has been providing vision, leadership, and superior 
software.
    Dave Berry



MTC-00008197

From: Lynne Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would like the Microsoft case to be settled and have no 
further litigation.
    Thank you,
    Lynne Garvie



MTC-00008198

From: Albert Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam/Sir:
    I cannot accept without writing the settlement agreed to by the 
Department of Justice.
    The usual expectation is that when a property crime is 
committed, the perpetrator is required to restore the ill-gotten 
gain. And, after that, the perpetrator is punished.
    The proposed settlement does not begin to approach restoration 
of a comeptitive environment for computer operating systems. Nor for 
computer applications. The breakup of Microsoft looked like a 
reasonable start to me. While hardly the total punishment deserved, 
it certainly was the proper starting point.
    I hope you will refuse to accept the DOJ agreement with 
Microsoft. We deserve better service from our system of justice.
    Yours truly,
    Albert O. Howard



MTC-00008199

From: Mike Zyskowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed by Microsoft should be agreed 
to and accepted by the Federal Government.
    Michael K. Zyskowski



MTC-00008200

From: Ron and Lucy Flenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are sending you this e-mail to ask that the Justice Dept 
accept and approve of the settlement that has been made with 
Microsoft recently. We believe that the settlement is kinda tough, 
but fair and reasonable to all sides. To delay the instrumentation 
of this settlement would only serve to delay final justice.
    Sincerley,
    Ron and Lucy Flenner
    Louisville, IL 62858



MTC-00008201

From: Jearl R. Waddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please insure that the Microsoft settlement is carried out and 
not derailed. The settlement is good for the consumer and the 
country.
    Thank You,
    Jearl R. Waddell
    115 Lauderdale Road
    Woodbury, NJ 08096



MTC-00008202

From: Sparky Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After observing this case for four year, it's time to settle, 
and let America and Microsoft return to work. This case has gone on 
long enough. The proposed settlement properly restricts Microsoft's 
business practices without the extreme penalties being asked for by 
some.
    Byrne Sanford
    Sammamish, Washington
    Sparky Sanford

[[Page 24997]]

    PI
    425 889-1615



MTC-00008203

From: Tempel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement as is. My family believes 
that this is a tought but fair settlement. And any more delays to 
getting this behind us is going to be bad for our economy and bad 
for our belief in the fairness of our justice system!
    Bob Tempel
    Sherman, IL



MTC-00008204

From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    ``((hey associate top boxes))'' ``9job code; NO5rc-en)'' ``99hey 
pay per view channels cable net microsoft at&t time warner comcast 
puget sound technology microsoft what is the innovation I.D. code 
dismissed or ignored or brushed off it is mine govt))''
    (((signed, RICHARD JOHN FRANK 1-4-2002)))



MTC-00008205

From: Lou F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel that Microsoft has done everything right, he has worked 
on this project form many, many years, There should not have been 
any settlement on this company at all. As for how much, 1.00 US 
dollar should be more then enough. Leave this man alone, and let him 
bring us into the furture. That is all I have to say.



MTC-00008206

From: Jean Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Litigation, submitted 1-3-2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is my belief from the information I have read That this has 
been going on too long. The freedom of progress has been slowed, and 
the publicity has been mostly adverse. It is time to close this 
matter and get on with regular daily business for the sake of 
promoting our economy. Microsoft is one of the most generous 
business firms in the world, and should be a promotion business to 
follow.
    Sincerely submitted,
    M. Jean Thompson,
    2034 E. No Crescent,
    Spokane, Wa 99207
    The greatest of these is LOVE!



MTC-00008207

From: Susan Barba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
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 Elizabeth Barba



MTC-00008208

From: David Eckman
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please submit the following comments to the Judge hearing this 
matter: I urge you NOT to approve the settlement terms with 
Microsoft that the federal government has negotiated. Following are 
several reasons and suggested order terms, based on my extensive use 
of personal computers in my law practice since 1983-84 and my 
knowledge of and experience with many operating systems and a wide 
variety of computer software, as well as in developing software:
    I and millions of other OS/2 users have been damaged by 
Microsoft's illegal use of tying agreements and other illegal 
conduct to gain a monopoly and its retaliatory and predatory use of 
its monopoly power against OS/2 (and other operating systems). Based 
on my experience and knowledge of the industry, what I believe will 
punish Microsoft most effectively while also stimulating competition 
would be an order directing Microsoft as follows for at least 20 
years:
    (1) Require Microsoft to LICENSE AT NO COST to the licensee ALL 
CODE necessary (a) to allow all other operating systems to run 32-
bit (and eventually higher level) programs written for Windows and 
every other operating system developed by Microsoft, and (b) to 
allow other developers' software to run as effectively under Windows 
and such other operating systems as Microsoft's own programs. That 
code should be made available to developers of operating system 
enhancements and plugins as well as the operating system developers 
themselves and should be made available as soon as it is being 
incorporated into any Microsoft product. The only limitation on such 
a requirement should be that the licensee be a U.S. citizen or 
company.
    (2) Prohibit Microsoft from any arrangement by which its 
software would be included in new computers. Microsoft's past use of 
its monopoly power and its use of tying agreements and other illegal 
arrangements to discourage computer manufacturers from offering non-
Microsoft operating systems and other software on their computers 
has seriously harmed competition, and those still willing to compete 
need many years without Microsoft's predatory conduct to catch up.
    (3) Prohibit Microsoft from any alterations, modifications or 
additions to Java and other other open software except those 
approved and adopted by the consortiums developing the open software 
for everyone's use. Microsoft has used its monopoly power to write 
its own version of Java, which was offered by Sun as open software. 
There are presently sites that my version of Netscape cannot access 
because they use a Microsoft version of Java. Java developers have 
felt the stinging impact of Microsoft's illegal behavior. Its 
consequences in the future may be even more severe if the federal 
government's weak legal precedent is established.
    With the order components set forth above, what Microsoft does 
with Explorer would be irrelevant since other operating systems 
could include other web browsers, yet all operating systems could 
run Windows (and other Microsoft operating system) programs, which 
has become the standard for most software being developed today 
because of Microsoft's past illegal conduct. Imposing the 
restrictions for a minimum of 20 years would allow other operating 
systems to strengthen and grow in usage to the point where software 
program developers would find it profitable to produce native 
versions of their software for such systems. The history of OS/2 
shows that this would work:
    While Windows was a 16-bit system and its 16-bit code was 
included in OS/2, sales and use of OS/2 grew, and native 
applications were being developed. But when Windows became a 32-bit 
program and Microsoft's 32-bit Windows code was not included in OS/
2, OS/2's market position and its growing acceptance were seriously 
hurt. That was exacerbated by Microsoft's illegal tying and other 
agreements that kept manufacturers from including OS/2 on their new 
computers. While OS/2 has remained alive despite Microsoft's illegal 
conduct (because of OS/2's superiority as an operating system over 
everything Microsoft has produced thus far) it cannot return to 
marketing success without the ability to run applications that most 
users want. In fact, IBM has been forced to scale back further work 
on OS/2, and it has almost given up on it because of Microsoft's 
pressure on it and the difficulty of dealing with Microsoft's 
illegal use of its monopoly power. OS/2 could return to effective 
competition with licenses of Microsoft's operating system code, at 
no cost to IBM and/or those who might want to enhance the system if 
IBM chooses not to do it. Finally, I understand that Microsoft has 
violated with impunity consent decrees of the past. It should be 
ordered to pay a substantial fine. It should also be ordered to pay 
all costs of monitoring its compliance in the future. This should 
continue for at least 20 years.
    IBM was severely punished over 20 years ago for its antitrust 
behavior. It then managed to behave in a responsible manner and has 
continued to do so. There is no reason why Microsoft should not be 
similarly punished now, so that it and Bill Gates can learn to 
behave as responsible corporate citizens. The economic consequences 
to Microsoft, however severe, would be entirely appropriate to its 
outrageous and illegal conduct. And I have no doubt that it could 
survive as a healthy company.
    [J:] David Eckman
    Law Offices of David W. Eckman
    [email protected]
    http://www.eckman-law.com
    3730 Kirby Dr., Suite 1200
    Houston, Texas 77098-3927
    713-661-2065



MTC-00008209

From: Frank Angrisano
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 24998]]

Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a Microsoft product user I want the Justice Department to 
accept the agreement that has been mutually agreed upon. The hold 
out states should be ignored, as they seem to have an ulterior 
motive for not agreeing with the present settlement. As a product 
user I have never felt that Microsoft has taken advantage of me or 
that I have paid an excessive price for any of their products.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Angrisano
    78 Rancho Del Sol
    Camino, CA. 95709
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00008210

From: H.Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I feel that the settlement process should go forward with haste. 
The public and Microsoft have paid a huge price to get to this point 
and to continue to waste taxpayer dollars is wrong. Microsoft has 
been an innovator in the tech industry for a long time and they 
should have the opportunity to continue to do so for the good of the 
country and its consumers. Please see that this reaches a conclusion 
soon
    Sincerely,
    Herbert A Barr
    309 Willow Drive
    Enterprise, Alabama 36330



MTC-00008211

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this matter. We do not need any more litigation. 
This does NOT serve the public purpose of the anti-trust act.
    Microsoft has been punished enough.......probably more than it 
should.
    Irene M. LaBonne



MTC-00008212

From: Narendra Parekh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am IN FAVOR of the settlement that DOJ and states have reached 
on Microsoft issue.
    Thanks!
    - Narendra Parekh
    - Amishi Parekh
    - Saheli Parekh
    Address: 5341 FORTE LANE, CONCORD, CA 94521



MTC-00008213

From: ford658
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices,
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. I like all consumers vote 
with my pocketbook. Since Microsoft is the champion in innovation, 
products, and business acumen, I buy their products. I also avoid 
the products of those who seek the power of the government to 
compete.
    The problem is not with Microsoft, it is with the anti-trust 
law--it should be rescinded.
    Frederick Ford



MTC-00008214

From: avawter1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment Attorneys
    Department of Justice
    As a member of the public using products in the field covered by 
the recent & lengthy litigation of this case, I urge you to finalize 
the settlement reached last year. It was evident that much hard work 
and ``give'' took place on both sides of the dispute and this is 
appreciated. It was also evident that this anti-trust case had a 
severe impact on the technological economy and on product innovation 
that affects consumers. Please, let's lift this burden with a swift 
conclusion to the matter in accord with the terms of the settlement.
    Antoinette W. Vawter
    Pismo Beach, CA



MTC-00008215

From: tom dobbin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to accept 
the settlement that is now before the courts. It seems to me that we 
as taxpayers and shareholders have suffered enough at the hands of 
those who want to return to the protection of the ``buggy whip'' 
industry. The antagonists in the Microsoft case are woefully out of 
touch with reality. In this age of technological advances which look 
more like a tidal wave, anyone who tries to hold to the status quo 
of yesteryear is dreaming. For the benefit of us all, let the 
proposed settlement go forward as written.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas D. Dobbin
    422 Island View So.
    Mattawa, WA 99349



MTC-00008216

From: Debbie Purdie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is high time the government (Feds and State) and 
Microsoft put an end to this case. We have learned over the years 
that when both sides are not happy with it, then it is probably as 
good a deal as one could ask for. We hear the complaints from both 
sides which tells us it really is time to put this thing to bed. We 
strongly urge the Justice Department to accept the settlement!!!!!!
    I have informed my Senator that I am not in favor of anymore 
political posturing via hearings, and that the dissenting states 
Attorney's General should stop the political barking (which is just 
to appease the big software and Internet companies that want to 
destroy their competitors). Competition is good for the computer 
industry and this settlement seems to assure fair and honest 
competition will take place.
    Respectfully,
    Scott and Debbie Purdie
    PS We are stockholders of BOTH AOL and Microsoft and actually 
have a greater stake in AOL than Microsoft. We think AOL's lobbying 
against this settlement is little more than sour grapes (and we have 
communicated with them our feelings as expressed above).
    --- Debbie Purdie
    --- [email protected]



MTC-00008217

From: Kurt Wiseman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that settlement in the DOJ case against Microsoft is 
in the best interest of the U.S. and the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Kurt Wiseman



MTC-00008218

From: jhministry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the dept of Justice has done enough to Microsoft. 
It has made its case and levied its verdict.
    It is time to move on. And allowing the other companies to 
continue to drag Microsoft down after your verdict has been given is 
a shame. Every business would love the opportunity to squash its 
competition to fill its own pocket and that is what you are allowing 
the other 9 states to do lead by the Microsoft competitors. When 
will it stop???????????????
    Rev Johnie Hinson
    109 Flinton Dr
    Hampton, VA 23666



MTC-00008219

From: Jack (038) Dot O'Hara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Our Comment on the subject ,as provided by the Tunney Act, is 
that the settlement is the best available result in a case that 
should never have been prosecuted by the U. S. DoJ or the Attorney 
Generals of the States involved, because there has been no damage to 
the purchasers or to the users of computers that were sold with 
Microsoft software installed. On the contrary, the public, the 
computer manufacturers and the economy of the nation were, and 
continue to be, greatly benefited by Microsoft products and 
marketing practices.
    We have studied the bases advanced by the USDoJ and the States 
as justification for their prosecution and have found them to be 
wholly without merit. On the contrary, our study has convinced us 
that the prosecution was politically motivated and has resulted in a 
gross injustice to Microsoft and has done irreparable damage to the 
credibility and the

[[Page 24999]]

reputation for trustworthiness of the Attorney Generals of the US 
and of the States concerned and of the Federal Judiciary.
    Respectfully submitted
    John A. O'Hara, Jr. and Dorothy M. O'Hara
    81 Highpoint Lane
    Chelan WA 98816



MTC-00008220

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I respectfully submit these comments and observations. I am a 
technologist who has been in this industry since 1985. I currently 
work for a brand building corporation that uses both Windows and 
Macintosh systems. In a prior career I worked for Ameritech (now 
SBC) for 30 years, five of which were in the IT organization.
    I am writing this letter because I strongly believe the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft fails to 
achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal 
conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and depriving 
Microsoft of its illegal gains. It appears that Microsoft has again 
accomplished its objectives and will continue now on its campaign of 
total dominance of anything it chooses. I fail to understand why our 
US Justice representatives, would once again offer a simple slap on 
the wrist to a company that has ignored a similar punishment in the 
past. Clearly, this approach has not and will not work. Microsoft 
has so many ways to interpret this proposed agreement that it is a 
total waste of paper. Were they not convicted of being an illegal 
monopoly? Did they not destroy competition in as many ruthless and 
illegal ways as they desired? Will this agreement, increase 
competition? Is this agreement good for our future? I believe, along 
with many others, that the answer to all these questions is a 
resounding NO.
    I strongly encourage you to persist in your efforts to 
vigorously bring this case to justice. A justice that will encourage 
competition and send a clear message to Microsoft and any others who 
operate outside the law. Microsoft's aggressive and illegal behavior 
should be curbed once and for all. I believe it is harmful to our 
future IT economy to allow this evil doer to continue in its illegal 
pursuits.
    Respectfully submitted,
    James R. Felbab
    Technologist,
    Hanson, Dodge Design
    [email protected]



MTC-00008221

From: Catherine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is high time this come to an end. Dragging this 
(ridiculous) lawsuit on any further is helping no one. I wish I were 
more eloquent-- but I just want to be heard that some of us are sick 
and tired of this and ready for it to come to an end. Personally, I 
think it should never have happened in the first place.
    Catherine North
    Federal Way, WA



MTC-00008222

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, and one who was supposed to 
have been ``damaged'' by the business practices of Microsoft, 
alleged by their competitors, I must tell you that this action has 
dragged on for much too long. It seems to me that the Settlement 
reached and agreed to by all parties should be the end of it. The 
economy cannot stand any more of the never-ending litigation which 
has been the real cause of damage to me as a consumer and 
stockholder of Microsoft.
    Sandra L. Pratt
    Carmel, CA



MTC-00008223

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,Michael.McLagan@ Linux.Org@ inetgw, joh...
Date: 1/3/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Government Anti Trust litigation has achieved 2 things to date.
    1) Bringing the Linux and Open Source communities (as the only 
credible competition that Microsoft faces) to the attention of 
Venture capitalists, the stock market, etc too soon, resulting in 
the destruction of many good companies who were not ready for the 
ruinous competition from the rise of companies that had no business 
being in business... the ones that survived will be stronger, and 
new ones will spring up.. but that does not set aside that fact that 
this entire industry was set back a several years by capitalist 
greed out of control. From the very beginning I'd prefer that this 
case against Microsoft had never happened.... eventually the bully 
gets turned on by everyone else. The effectiveness and Return on 
Investment of Open Source technologies are so stunning that 
Microsoft has been looking for an effective way to battle it, 
discredit it, whatever works and this brings about the second point
    2) Assuring Microsoft that they can beat anyone, and don't need 
to fear even the government, so now they are free to continue as 
they always have, with impunity. The many blatant lies they told in 
court make this clear. Why isn't this a good thing? Because it 
deprives real innovators of the fruits of their innovations, and as 
a result removes the incentive to people to keep our nation in the 
lead technologically. It also reinforces many people's worship of 
the ends despite the means being inappropriate, and this undercuts 
our entire society. Winning is not everything, it is just part of 
life. But isn't Microsoft an innovator? A marketing truism is that 
if you say something often enough and loud enough people will 
believe it. And people don't care enough to find the truth. For any 
innovation that Microsoft has made, it can also be shown who they 
busted in the chops to take it away from them, generally with strong 
arm tactics, and no thought of ethics. This goes all the way back to 
their original product, Microsoft Basic. They've left many a good 
company and organization shattered in their destructive wake. People 
break laws, not companies... and I think they should face penalties 
appropriate to their situations. That certainly has not happened in 
this case. The public interest is not served by encouraging mafia 
like tactics in the name of economic recovery, the very greed and 
business tactics that lead to the recession in the first place.
    The next Einstein will probably be a kid from a third world 
country that had access to a cheap castoff PC, the source code for 
Linux, and the internet. With clubs formed by these kids, that 
country, and other countries that actually allow and encourage 
continued innovation, will then have a new technological revolution. 
It can only happen outside the sphere of Microsoft's control. Linux 
is only the beginning.. and companies that spring up around new 
technologies need the opportunity to succeed.
    Microsoft has 2 strengths, and they have been there from the 
beginning. 1) Convincing sales, marketing & PR, and 2) a willingness 
to be totally ruthless and as unethical as they have to be to get 
what they want the way they want it. And then claim credit for it.
    When have you seen someone who fights clean in the schoolyard 
beaten a dirty fighter? Only if they are much, much better trained, 
especially if smaller. Aren't trust, ethics and morals the fabric of 
our society, especially assumptions behind our legal system? So 
wouldn't the biggest winners be those actually able to get around 
the rules, above the law so to speak?
    If ethics don't stand then our society falls into anarchy. How 
often have you heard ``It's not personal, It's business'' used as a 
justification? But don't people who act this way deprive themselves 
and their organizations of future benefits that might be gained from 
those whom they are cheating? Isn't this counter productive?
    Most people won't believe this, but Microsoft not only has NOT 
invented the computer industry and the internet, but rather they 
hijacked it, and in the process actually slowed it down... and the 
slowdown continues. Now we are paying the price of what they have 
sown. As The founders of our great country knew, freedom requires 
responsibility, and when we abdicate responsibility in great enough 
numbers, we will also lose our freedom in time.
    Microsoft is about making money, selling whatever they can push, 
always creating a new need, a new desire... remind you of anything? 
How about the drug pusher at the schoolyard? Ever wonder why 
computer people are called ``users''? Think of it, an entire economy 
held hostage by one company and what Microsoft chooses to do or not 
do. Thinking that daily or hourly reboots are the way computers 
``are'', and putting up with the unnecessary loss of productivity, 
the continual and often unneeded upgrades. Microsoft is not 
concerned beyond getting your money, and what they sell you being 
just ``good enough'' that they get to keep it that money. What is 
more, as Microsoft slowly takes over the internet, and everyone's 
computers, as they get everyone's data on their servers at MSN, or 
have access to it

[[Page 25000]]

through hidden back doors concealed in proprietary source code on 
your system. These hidden doors could only be found by legions of 
programmers looking at the source. What do you mean that Microsoft 
wouldn't do this? Check your history, they have already been caught 
doing exactly this at least twice. What is next for this 
organization? Where will they stop? When will it get to the point 
that even the US government will not be able to face down this 
entity already capable of buying Nukes should they choose to do so?
    There is a word in Russian ``Pravda'', and it is usually 
translated to english as ``truth'', but it in fact means not 
``truth'', but rather ``what best serves the state''. Read Robert 
Heinlein's extensive essay on the subject ... This is how Microsoft 
defines truth as used in their various articles and whitepapers, not 
to mention what they say in their business dealings and the 
courtroom. This is an opponent the like of which the world has 
rarely seen, and never with as much terrible power and influence as 
is within their grasp within a very short time to come if the 
government does not act appropriately towards them now that the 
battle has been engaged. When will we all wake up?
    Attached to this message is an earlier message I wrote regarding 
what I consider to be equitable remedies, and also a follow up 
message by Jon ``maddog'' Hall, Executive Director of Linux 
International, which has since been published.
    Mark Bolzern
    [email protected]
    http://www.Bolzern.Org Phone: 303-690-2806 Fax: 303-693-6064



MTC-00008224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been told that this is where opinions on the Microsoft 
settlement should be sent. Please correct me is I am misteaken.
    As I understand the current state of the Microsoft (MS) 
antitrust case, MS has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
position. The proposed settlement is that MS will be subject to 
government oversight for 5 to 7 years. As a 42 year old MIS veteran 
with Math and Computer Science degrees and over 15 years experience 
designing and managing computer systems for companies with up to 
1,500 users I would like to offer a simple vision of what 
``conduct'' the government should insist that MS follow.
    MS has used its dominance of their Operating Systems (OS) to 
achieve dominance of the Applications that run on top of the OS. The 
object of the government oversight should be to break MS's lock on 
the link between the OS and the Applications. The only way to do 
this is to FORCE MS to publish the documented (and undocumented) 
Application Program Interfaces (APIs) in the OS necessary to load 
and run MS Windows Applications. MS will scream bloody murder, and 
try to spin this as un-American, but running an abusive monopoly is 
un-American too. Publishing ALL of the necessary APIs should enable 
other OS vendors to modify their OSs so that they can run industry 
standard Windows Applications (including Microsoft Office). I have 
emulated other OSs like Windows on top of OSs like Macintosh and 
UNIX. so I have seen it work to varying degrees. Unfortunately these 
emulated MS OSs have been problematic because they had to be reverse 
engineered without MS's support. Not only doesn't MS support OS 
emulation, they have been proven in court to sabotage these efforts 
(DRDOS). If the government FORCED MS to cooperate then the other OSs 
could be enhanced to run MS programs natively.
    Compliance would be EASY to monitor. If MS were forced to 
release their OS APIs, then I predict a stampede in the LINUX world 
(and probably the UNIX and Mac world) to support the APIs in order 
to run native Windows Applications. The LINUX community already has 
a global and public means of development and review for projects, 
and I am sure that a Windows port would become a high priority 
multi-year project. LINUX should be used to verify compliance 
because it is the ONLY transparent OS allowing anybody in the world 
to view the source code of the OS. If MS complies then the LINUX 
world will be able to make a workable clone of the MS OS. This OS 
clone would run on top of LINUX and be able to run all MS 
Applications. If MS ``forgets'' to mention some of the APIs, the 
LINUX crowd with its global review system will identify what is 
missing. If a clone MS OS can be built and it runs MS Applications, 
then MS compliance will have been achieved. Microsoft Excel, Word, 
Media Player, Internet Explorer, and Power Point and any other MS 
Applications that the US government uses could be the applications 
used to verify compliance.
    Even though MS would cry bloody murder, they shouldn't worry 
unless they are afraid that their OS is so weak that a LINUX based 
clone could outperform the MS OS. Either way the consumer benefits. 
If the MS OS is superior, then the consumer has two choices: buy the 
MS OS or use the slower but free LINUX clone. If the free LINUX 
version of the MS OS ends up being superior then the consumer is 
allowed to use a higher quality lower priced (free) product. Either 
way the MS monopoly on the OS and the abuses that have resulted from 
the monopoly will be fixed.
    By eliminating MS's monopoly on the OS, I predict a new golden 
age in software development. There should be NO time limit on the 
publication of the APIs, as long as MS makes OSs they should be 
forced to publish the APIs.
    Skip Steuart
    Steuart Investment Company
    Chevy Chase, Maryland
    phone:301/951-2744



MTC-00008225

From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:38pm
Subject: Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement proposed by the JUstice Dept is a gfair 
and just dicision for all parties Emewrson H graham



MTC-00008226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:40pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I really wish our US Government would accept decisions as they 
stand instead of dragging suits out years and years and millions and 
millions of dollars being wasted. A decision was 
reached............let's get on with it! The Federal Government and 
9 states agreed. Let Microsoft ``pay'' its reduced liability and 
let's get on with life! Having been a senior officer in a publically 
traded company for 20 years, I personally know that a company can't 
plan anything until it truly knows where it stands. Think of the 
inefficiencies not to mention the cost! When is our legal system 
going to get into the 21st Century and quit practicing ``Guilty 
until proven innocent''!!!!!!!!
    Bob Burress.



MTC-00008227

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement, 1/3/02
    Thank you for the e-mail and providing me the info.
    I believe we live in the ``Free Enterprise Systems''. My vote is 
for the Microsoft Executive, Bill Gate. I believe that the court 
should support Bill Gate and let him do the job to run the 
technology in our country.
    Ali



MTC-00008228

From: Tom Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To: DOJ
    The current ruling is in the best interest of the industry, 
consumer and our countries economy.
    The on going objections originate from competitors who want the 
government to cripple Microsoft, there by giving them an unfair 
advantage over Microsoft. Please throw out the petitions filled 
against Microsoft.
    Tom Lane



MTC-00008229

From: David Freitag
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The economy has suffered terribly from the overzealous pursuit 
of punitive damages against Microsoft which one of the main 
foundations of the USA economy. Please expedite the current 
agreement and do not allow expansion of the suit as sought by the 
states and competitors of Microsoft. The sooner this litigation is 
completed, the better.
    This e-mail and attachments, if any, may contain confidential 
and/or proprietary information. Please be advised that the 
unauthorized use or disclosure of the information is strictly 
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the 
sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this 
message and attachments. Thank you.

[[Page 25001]]



MTC-00008230

From: Westover, Michael (US-LIHI)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just wanted to let you know that I believe the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement is fair and it's time to stop all of the 
Microsoft bashing.
    Michael D. Westover
    Liberty International, e-Commerce
    [email protected]
    (617) 574-5765
    CC:'attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'



MTC-00008231

From: Bud Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft settlement as submitted by the Justice Dept is 
fair and equitable for all Parties involved.
    Submitted by Emerson H. Graham



MTC-00008232

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Leave Microsoft and Bill Gates alone. Their success is earned. 
Allow this settlement to take place.



MTC-00008233

From: Bob LeVitus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I've just read the news on the proposed one billion dollar 
settlement with Microsoft.
    As I understand the deal, this seems to me to be very much in 
favor of Microsoft. In addition to few to no changes to their 
behavior, a portion of the punishment is, in fact, a real benefit to 
them. The resolution including the dissemination of their software 
and compatible hardware, training to use their products, and loads 
of their often bundled software, seems to fly in the face of the 
very point of the trial.
    They have been declared a monopoly for illegal tactics that were 
specifically meant to increase their market share, for bundling 
products for free to get market share, and for illegally blocking 
other's products to gain market share, and now, a good portion of 
the settlement specifically increases their market share of both the 
OS and their bundled products.
    I believe this settlement should be declined. It does nothing to 
address their behavior and will not change it in the future, 
allowing them to continue to bilk the public.
    Please don't let them get away with it.
    Regards,
    Bob
    Bob LeVitus
    Writer and raconteur
    [email protected]
    http://www.boblevitus.com



MTC-00008234

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit Settlement
    To whom it my concern:
    I am in complete support of the current settlement between 
Microsoft & the DOJ. I think to continue to pursue Microsoft and 
seek additional penalties will in the long term damage the American 
Computer Industry.



MTC-00008235

From: Jerry Blackwill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to support the justice department in the terms of the 
Microsoft settlement. By taking this action, the justice department 
has put the US on a better economic footing.
    Jerry Blackwill



MTC-00008236

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please conclude your current agreement with Microsoft and ignore 
their competitors
    Thank You
    Frank P.
    Cyrill Jr.



MTC-00008237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I hope that the government soon stops its harrassment of 
Microsoft. I realize that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on 
operating systems for the personal computers, but that seems to be a 
more reasonable approach than having to deal with multiple operating 
systems. If software developers had to write software for multiple 
operating systems, everything would become more complex and more 
expensive.
    Sincerely yours,
    Richard W. Burg



MTC-00008238

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Complete the Microsoft settlement NOW! It is time we put this 
matter behind us and allow Microsoft an opportunity to get back to 
running its business. Why should our own government keep trying to 
undermine this great American company? Leave Microsoft alone.
    M. Mills
    1/03/02



MTC-00008239

From: tonymi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement proposed by the DOJ is fair and 
adequate, and I would like to see it accepted by the court. I 
believe the demands of the nine holdout states, including my own 
home state of Kansas, have greatly exceeded the scope of any 
remedies needed. As I understand it, antitrust settlements aren't 
supposed to rob the plaintiff of intellectual property, and two of 
the terms proposed by the holdouts do just that, namely the 
requirements that Microsoft provide source code for Internet 
Explorer and license Office for other operating systems.
    I also object to the request that Microsoft provide a stripped-
down version of Windows. I'm a retired software engineer with 30 
years of experience, and I know this idea is just impractical. 
Features that the holdouts want removed work much more effectively 
if they are integrated into the operating system, not slapped on as 
an afterthought. It's analogous to air conditioning on an 
automobile; factory air always works better than an add-on unit. 
Smart customers would avoid the product, and customers who did buy 
it would regret it, so what's the point of forcing Microsoft to 
produce it? It also runs counter to industry trends; every modern 
operating system now includes these added features, and customers 
expect them. If Microsoft is burdened with this requirement, they 
should be allowed to affix a prominent label saying ``This product 
was designed for you by the Attorneys General of Kansas, California, 
etc. ... Please forward all complaints to them.''
    I believe that the AGs of the holdout states only want to 
prolong the case for political reasons (to placate Microsoft's 
rivals) or for greed, hoping to somehow milk a windfall from 
Microsoft. I don't think they are the least bit interested in 
justice, only in benefiting themselves. Prolonging the case is 
holding back the high-tech industry, and therefore the entire 
economy. I request the court to accept the settlement as a fair one, 
move on, and help our country recuperate.
    Thank you,
    Tony Miller
    316 Lawrence Avenue
    Lawrence, KS 66049
    785/331-4592
    [email protected]



MTC-00008240

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:02pm
Subject: (no subject)
    SETTLE



MTC-00008241

From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my dismay at the settlement concerning 
Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in forcing 
their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the 
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I 
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer 
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, 
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users. 
Microsoft Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a 
serious security threat that has caused much expense to our support 
systems. Because of their overwhelming

[[Page 25002]]

market, they are slow to respond to the problems they cause and slow 
to address quality issues in their products. People have grown to 
accept what they provide, regardless of inferior quality, security 
problems or even cost.
    I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the 
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not 
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    (801) 566-1083
    [email protected]
    Joseph F. Buchanan--
    Internet: [email protected]
    University of Utah
    http://www.cc.utah.edu/joseph/
    TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
    --(really ML2751C)
    Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
    -- (801) 581-8814
    X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/joseph/pgpkey



MTC-00008242

From: Aqualyst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ:
    Although I may disagree with some of the ways in which the 
Microsoft Corporation conducts its business strategy, Microsoft is 
no more harmful to me than the US Post Office, the local cable TV 
company, or any other of a myriad of companies that, unlike 
Microsoft, are monopolies in the true sense of the word.
    These companies are granted monopolies by government force, 
against which I have no recourse except to do without. Conversely, 
regarding Microsoft products, I can always cast my vote against them 
by purchasing other products. I can think of no area in which 
Microsoft actually holds a true monopoly; neither in operating 
systems nor in any other software currently in the marketplace. I 
can use an open-source operating system such as Linux on my PC, or I 
can purchase a computer from Apple that requires me to adjust to, 
and buy software compatible with, their proprietary operating 
system. I can use Netscape, and often do, to browse the Internet 
from my PC with Windows installed.
    I can purchase excellent word processing software from Corel, 
instead of using Microsoft Word. I can even purchase a complete, 
integrated Office Suite without spending one cent on Microsoft 
products. The list goes on and on.
    Here's what I can't do...
    I can't subscribe to a competitive cable TV provider, who may 
offer better service at a lower price... I must use the one granted 
a monopoly in my neighborhood. I can't use a telephone company that 
may offer more value and trouble-free service in my neighborhood...I 
must use the government-granted monopoly in my calling area. I can't 
change my provider for electrical service... I must use the power 
company with a government-enforced monopoly in my area.
    I'm sure you get my point here. The Department of Justice (if 
you're truly seeking justice) should be striving to eliminate all of 
the government-enforced monopolies in this country that do untold 
damage to the economy. If you question the damage that government 
intervention in the marketplace can cause, I would refer you to the 
situation in California regarding power generation. Microsoft has 
earned its market position. It deserves to hold its dominance over 
the competition because it continues to provide me with ever-
improving software and hardware, which enriches my life and makes me 
individually more productive. The best thing the DOJ could do would 
be to repeal the Sherman Antitrust Act and get out of the 
marketplace. The term ``laissez faire'' is not just a cute phrase. 
It is a caveat, and a marketplace axiom, that the DOJ, and the rest 
of the government, should observe. There is not now, nor has there 
ever been, a justification for government manipulation of business. 
The marketplace will ultimately take care of itself through the 
profit motive. The Sherman Act, itself, is an atrocity which was 
enacted to resolve a situation caused by government intervention. 
One doesn't cure an illness by administering more of the poison 
which caused it.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. Mehan 1151 Carrollton Ave. Metairie, LA 70005



MTC-00008243

From: Joan Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am all for the comprehensive agreement that the Federal 
Goverment and nine states reached with Microsoft. Enough is enough.
    Sincerely,
    Joan T. Clarke Fairview N. C. 28730



MTC-00008244

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: the Tunney Act
    For the sake of the public at large please be assured that this 
settlement is in the public interest and to continue more litigation 
against Microsoft will only hurt the American economy and benefit a 
few special interests. Please do NOT continue more litigation 
against Microsoft and continue to hurt the economy.
    The attack on Microsoft has already done damage to the stock 
market. Just go back to when it emerged during the last 
administration and see the effect on the market every time a new 
announcement came out about punishing Microsoft. Its not Microsoft 
that gets punished its the American Public and Freedom that suffers.
    George Korey
    060 Marcus Ct
    Pinole CA 94564



MTC-00008245

From: Peter Kain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please stop wasting taxpayers money litigating against 
Microsoft. It is an inefficient use of the taxpayers money. I buy 
and use many of the products they sell and do so willingly. Why? 
They are great products. They are reliable. Most importantly, they 
allow me to communicate with others who also use Microsoft products.
    Enough is enough. Let's move on. There is a time and place for 
pursuing justice, and that time has passed. The horse was dead a 
long time ago.
    Let's not beat it any more.
    Sincerely,
    Peter J. Kain
    Peter Kain Lighting Accessories Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008246

From: Bob Beaudoin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment for 
Microsoft along with 8 other states (California, Connecticut, 
Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and West Virginia).
    The Attorney Generals' of these states are correct in pursuing 
Harsher penalities. The DOJ settlement is not a deterent on what 
Microsoft has done to many other companies. The DOJ needs to support 
the case of these states against Microsoft.
    Bob Beaudoin
    5435 Riley Lane
    Murray, UT 84107
    Bob Beaudoin
    Computer Support
    Plant Operations
    University of Utah
    801 585-5919



MTC-00008247

From: Patrick McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microssoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern--
    I would like to urge the DOJ to back off Microsoft and allow 
this settlement to go forward.
    Very truly yours,
    Al Maiolo President
    Al J. Maiolo
    President
    Aero Hardware & Parts Company, Inc.
    130 Business Park Dr.
    Armonk, NY 10504
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Fax: (914) 273-8550
    Phone: (914) 273-8612



MTC-00008248

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:12pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I THINK AS THE NEW YEAR IS HERE, WE SHOULD ALL TRY AND GET BACK 
TO OUR NORMAL LIFE STYLE. I THINK MICROSOFT AND THE SETTLEMENT IS 
VERY FAIR. I DON'T THINK THE OTHER STATES ARE BEING FAIR WITH 
MICROSOFT OR THE ECONOMY. MICROSOFT WILL HELP STIMULATE THE ECONOMY, 
IF THE OTHER STATES WILL GET OFF OF THEIR BACK.
    THANK YOU

[[Page 25003]]

    BERTIE F. SMITH
    243 CR. 2446
    SALTILLO, MS 38866



MTC-00008249

From: Henry G Absher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write you in support of the recent settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. After three long years of court 
battles and round-the-clock negotiations, a fair and reasonable 
settlement was reached, and then we find out that there are some who 
feel it needs further examination. What about spending our dollars 
and time on examining our current economic status or our nation's 
security? These might be more pressing issues at the moment.
    This settlement was not only well thought out, but was 
formulated with all parties in mind. Not only did Microsoft give up 
a great deal to allow the competitive market to flourish, but also 
they agreed to allow these companies to sue them if, in fact, they 
weren't complying. The settlement addresses everything from pricing 
agreements to code disclosure, and this should be considered a real 
coup for competitors. Microsoft has bowed down to dozens of demands, 
and now we need to let the technology industry get back to business.
    The American economy could use some boosting at the moment, and 
holding up the IT sector and their competitive growth can only harm 
things. I urge you to support this settlement by helping to see that 
it no longer gets challenged from those in the federal government 
who would compromise it. Thank you for your time and effort on this 
issue.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Absher



MTC-00008250

From: alfred mizner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've worked in the technology industry for over 10 years and I 
have been mystified by the governments apparent attempt(through 
obvious competitor funding) destroy Microsoft. It is because of 
their leadership and support for building a common PC platform that 
we are not still working on disparate and disjoint systems and 
software platforms. My comment on the settlement is that it goes 
well beyond what I think is necessary or appropriate. Therefore I 
would request that this be the end of this odyssey and start putting 
money and focus in a more appropriate place.
    Regards
    Al



MTC-00008251

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please get off Bill's back.!!!!!!!!!! All he and Mrs. Gates do 
is good for the people and kids. Not to mention what he has done for 
the Kids. We are in a lot of bad times now , and mostly in Seattle.
    Thank You
    Wes Boyd.



MTC-00008252

From: Sumit Pal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    The settlement is certainly a positive one for the industry and 
the American people at large.
    Cheers,
    Sumit



MTC-00008253

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's time to move on and get off Microsoft's back. This 
market is moving too rapidly for anyone to maintain an edge too 
long.
    Matt Ryan, CLU
    9080 Illahee Rd NE
    Bremerton, WA 98311



MTC-00008254

From: Mitch Millar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This case has been going on too long and has especially added 
detrimentally to all Technology stock losses in the last two years.
    Microsoft is highly competitive, all successful companies are. 
If they are not breaking the law, get over it!!
    Special interest factions are trying to skim the cream off of 
Microsoft's success because they cannot or are unwilling to compete. 
Leave Microsoft alone!!
    The technology Microsoft provides make the market for the rest 
of us out there in the software world.
    Mitch
    [email protected]



MTC-00008255

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am a public school teacher in Wisconsin and am writing on 
behalf of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case. I support 
the goals that are set forth in this settlement to establish an 
independent foundation comprised of educators to distribute 
technology funds, computers and software to the nation's poorest 
schools.
    As a public school teacher, I am made aware of the importance of 
technology on a daily basis. I am also well aware of the huge 
technology gap that exists between wealthy and poor communities. 
This settlement would make a big difference in Wisconsin in that we 
are below the national average when it comes to computer 
availability for students. These funds could also help provide 
teachers with sufficient technology training, another area in which 
we are behind in Wisconsin.
    Technology can be a powerful teaching tool and if we are going 
to fully prepare today's students for tomorrow's world, we have to 
stay current and we have to make technology available to everyone. 
In my school district we are just beginning to see the impact that 
technology can have. We recently passed a referendum that enabled 
the district to purchase one computer per teacher, and is slowly 
striving to have one computer for every 6 students. While that still 
is sorely behind what we see in the business world, it has already 
made a big difference. A settlement such as this could assist other 
districts, as well as my own, in obtaining the technology necessary 
for education in the 21st century.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Cathy Atkinson
    Social Studies Teacher
    Waukesha, WI.



MTC-00008256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I believe that the US Government would find it's self better 
occupied paying more attention to the terrorist problem, the 
airplane security problem than bothering with Microsoft. This 
company only does good, helps our nations civilian and military, 
with the latest in technology and contributes computers to the 
nations libraries, provides jobs and pays its taxes to support the 
Government.
    G. C. TRENTANOVE



MTC-00008257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    PLEASE, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I DUANE A. DAVIS AGREE TO THE 
SETTELMENT, WE NEED MORE JOBS, NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS WHERE THE TRIAL 
LAWYERS RAKE IN ALL THE MONEY
    THANKS
    [email protected]



MTC-00008258

From: Joseph F. Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (added my address)
    (This is the same message sent before, but I forgot to add my 
mailing address) I would like to express my dismay at the settlement 
concerning Microsoft Corporation. Because of Microsoft's tactics in 
forcing their products (Windows OS and Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
especially) and forcing out competition, we have to deal the 
problems that come with not having alternatives to their systems. I 
work at the University of Utah and deal with a lot of computer 
users. Because of the monopolistic actions of Microsoft, 
alternatives to their email systems are not common among our users. 
Microsoft

[[Page 25004]]

Outlook, Windows OS and Internet Explorer form together a serious 
security threat that has caused much expense to our support systems. 
Because of their overwhelming market, they are slow to respond to 
the problems they cause and slow to address quality issues in their 
products. People have grown to accept what they provide, regardless 
of inferior quality, security problems or even cost.
    I feel that the current settlement has let Microsoft off the 
hook and allows them to conduct business as usual. This should not 
be the case. Please seriously consider the states' petitions against 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    7472 Silver Circle
    West Jordan, UT 84084-3946
    (801) 566-1083
    [email protected]
    Joseph F. Buchanan
    --Internet: [email protected]
    University of Utah
    --http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/
    TACC--Marriott Library--295 S. 1500 East
    --(really ML2751C)
    Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0860
    --(801) 581-8814
    X-Pgp-Url: http://www.cc.utah.edu/~joseph/pgpkey



MTC-00008259

From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement:
    This is to express my disapproval of prolonged litigation in the 
Microsoft case. The settlement reached is fair and should be 
accepted.
    It is definitely not in the interest of the public or the US 
economy to continue court proceedings.
    Respectfully
    Konrad M.Kempfe, MD
    715 Bogar Drive
    Selinsgrove, PA 17870



MTC-00008260

From: Kevin McDaniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is imperative that any settlement should be in the 
form of CASH only It should NOT be in the form of additional gifts 
or sales of Microsoft product to schools and others.
    I would like to see this case brought to a swift conclusion, but 
not at the expense of other firms marketing competing products.
    Kevin McDaniel



MTC-00008261

From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:27pm
Subject: My 2 cents
    This case against Microsoft has been poorly executed by the 
government, companies and handful of states taking part. It is also 
quite hypocritical of those companies because they simply do not 
have the products to available to replace the Microsoft software. I 
could see their point if they actually had something to sell me but 
they don't. Have you ever tried writing a letter, doing a 
spreadsheet, made a greeting card, edited a photograph on a UNIX 
machine? I didn't think so. All these companies have a perfect right 
to manufacture competing products, but they dont, even for their own 
die hard users.
    In addition I as a consumer feel that the deal Microsoft gives 
me is a tremendous value. Where else can I get a state of the art 
operating system, with many applications for under $200? There is no 
case here.
    Microsoft software has done more for our economy, military 
strength, and business productivity than any single company in 
history.
    Let them keep it up. Or invite them to leave the US and become a 
corporation of lets say, India. I know the country of India would 
welcome them with open arms, unlike our own government which scorns 
them.



MTC-00008262

From: William J. Crittenden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft
    There are basically three types of people who have opinions on 
the U.S. v. Microsoft case:
    (1) People who have no idea what the law says or what Microsoft 
has actually done. (These people should be ignored)
    (2) People who have some vested interest in supporting Microsoft 
or some ideological axe to grind such that they support Microsoft 
for reasons that have nothing to do with the case, Microsoft's 
obvious and unrepentant guilt, or appropriate remedies.
    (3) (Myself included) People who are absolutely outraged by 
Microsoft's pattern of deliberate illegal conduct and its total 
disregard for the law. READ THE DAMN COURT OF APPEALS OPINION!!! IT 
SPEAKS FOR ITSELF!! Bill Gates is a crook and a liar, and he has 
created, illegally maintained and repeatedly abused a monopoly in 
computer operating systems. The harm to consumers is staggering.
    Windows is an overpriced and unreliable pile of crap, but most 
people have no real choice (Apple is an expensive alternative, and 
there are no other widely used consumer operating systems). In some 
cases, more than half of the cost of a new computer is the preloaded 
Microsoft software (which costs Microsoft almost nothing to make). 
Many non-Microsoft software products perform poorly because 
Microsoft is constantly fiddling with Windows and refuses to release 
the source code that developers need to write for.
    Windows XP includes many new bundled features which clearly 
should be sold as separate applications and not as part of the 
operating system. This practice is clearly illegal and destroys 
innovation and competition. If this practice is not stopped, 
Microsoft will soon have a monopoly in virtually the entire personal 
computer software industry.
    TERMINATE THE ILLEGAL MONOPOLY! STOP THE BUNDLING! STOP WINDOWS 
XP!
    PROTECT REAL JAVA FROM MICROSOFT'S ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO DESTROY 
COMPETITION! BREAK UP MICROSOFT!
    AND THROW GATES AND BALMER IN JAIL!!!!!!
    William J. Crittenden
    Law Office
    1325 Fourth Avenue, #1730
    Seattle, WA 98101
    (206) 729-0259
    [email protected]



MTC-00008263

From: DYMOND Christopher S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am shocked at what appears to be a disregard for anti-trust 
laws and the lack of timeliness of enforcing them.
    I ask that you please issue a punishment for Microsoft's 
violations that is both sufficiently punitive to dissuade future 
companies from behaving as Microsoft has and that it is done 
quickly.
    Christopher Dymond
    Salem, Oregon



MTC-00008264

From: David Ayala
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Please accept this message as my support for the 
proposed settlement. As a result, I believe Microsoft has learned to 
act and behave in a manner that promotes fair trade and 
competitiveness in the business world. Thank you.
    D. Ayala, Jr.
    West Hills, California



MTC-00008265

From: John McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement Please lay off Microsoft. I have no 
financial interest in the company.
    John



MTC-00008266

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:34pm
Subject: microsoft case
    please leave microsoft alone. the consumers like me are not 
complaining, only competitors who aren't as inovative, nor as 
consumer oriented. microsoft has done an excellent job for the publi 
worldwide. it's time the justice dept focused on somebody committing 
a crime that hurts the public. leave them alone and allow them to 
get back to the business of making a major contribution to the 
public and business world.



MTC-00008267

From: paul kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:32pm
Subject: RE; Microsoft settlement.
    Dear DOJ:
    I have followed the MSFT ``case'' and want to add my voice to 
those of many others. The 18 States continuing efforts to force MSFT 
to divest is a poor use of valuable time and seems to be largely 
politically motivated at

[[Page 25005]]

this time. My vote is to move on quickly to more pressing issues, 
such as Enron and collusion between accountancy and business today 
that are costing consumers and shareholders Billions.
    Thank you.
    P Kelly, MD



MTC-00008269

From: Sandy Armsrtong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In early 2000, I had made investments, mostly with money 
inherited from my mother's lifetime savings, on the advise of my 
investment counselors, for myself and my children. I had about one 
fourth of what I needed to retire and my children had about enough 
for college educations and a future down payment on a house. My 
children were set for a good start in life and I had a start toward 
financial security for my future. Then, disaster came, in the form 
of a suit against Microsoft. In my opinion, this suit was the 
catalyst of the tremendous downfall in the stock market. This 
occurrence has left me and my children with only 40% of the money we 
had in early 2000. I never felt that Microsoft was at fault in the 
first place. What has happened to Americans who have budgeted and 
saved all of their lives to make their and their children's futures 
secure in order to improve profits of a few disgruntled corporations 
who were not able to compete with the innovations of Microsoft is 
very wrong.
    Nothing can be done to compensate for the devastation caused to 
the American people by those who brought the suit against Microsoft, 
but the best that can be done is to finalize the Microsoft 
settlement which has been agreed upon by nine states as well as the 
federal government. It is time to put an end to this suit. It is my 
hope that such an decision will act as another catalyst to bring the 
stock market once more to more favorable gains and that my children 
and I may recoup some of our tremendous losses.
    PLEASE, rule in favor of the present Microsoft agreement
    Thank you,
    Sandra M. Armstrong
    Santa Cruz, California



MTC-00008270

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:35pm
Subject: Final Determination of this case
    This has gone on far too long. I think it is too strong against 
Microsoft. It requires that Microsoft disclose all the interface and 
related technical information for the middleware use and much more I 
don't think is fair. If Microsoft is smart enough to have figured it 
all out why do they have to give it away. Let the competitors come 
up with another way to get their middleware to be compatible. It 
seems to me you are punishing someone, who has been creative, 
because the other party can't come up with a better idea and 
product. If Microsoft agreed then let's get it over with and move 
on.
    Lucille Finamore



MTC-00008271

From: Brown, Terry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I consider the entire pursuit of Microsoft for antitrust 
violations a witch hunt against a company that is guilty of nothing 
more than engaging in production and free trade in what, upon my 
last reading of the constitution, was a free and capitalistic 
society. Based on the evidence and judgments I have reviewed to 
date, I oppose any form of punishment or sanction against Microsoft. 
Let the free market reign.
    Terry S. Brown
    Vice President, Manufacturing and Process Industry Practice
    Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Inc.
    55 Old Bedford Road Lincoln, MA 01773
    Tel. 781.402.1183
    Fax 703.991.7542
    Cell 781.929.2713 [email protected]
    Join Balanced Scorecard Online Free at http://www.bscol.com



MTC-00008272

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; 
[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:27 PM
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 p rivate power to a point where it becomes stronger 
than their democratic State it self. That in it's essence, is 
Fascism--ownership of government by an individ ual, by a group or by 
any controlling private power.'' Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Message 
proposing the Monopoly Investigation, 1938



MTC-00008273

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``sbskinner'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 6:45 PM
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Ms. Mills,
    I am delighted that you continue to reject 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).
    Thank you again, and happy holidays.
    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

[[Page 25006]]

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.''
    As an afternote, once again, you might be interested to know 
that when I went to the WV AGs website just a few minutes earlier, 
and tried to send this email to that office, the above-mentioned 
``can't be displayed: detect network settings, etc'' came up and 
prevented my emailing Mr. McGraw. Very small potatoes, but very big 
irritation--plus two more requests from Microsoft for runtime error 
and another two requests to debug. Just keeps us chuckling, doesn't 
it?
    Thank you again.



MTC-00008274

From: Allan Tingey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer scientist working in human genetics research at 
the University of Utah and I just wanted to pass along my feelings 
about the Microsoft settlement. I can tell you, without question, 
that the Microsoft monopoly has made our work more difficult and 
wasted considerable tax dollars. Because there is no viable 
alternative, we are forced to purchase Windows systems for each 
workers desk so that the usual desktop applications are available. 
The Microsoft operating systems, however, are not adequate for our 
research so additional UNIX systems must be purchased. The 
incompatibility of the systems creates many problems and the extra 
hardware and training needed to operate both systems is very 
wasteful.
    ``Multi-user'' operating systems like UNIX, Linux, and now Mac-
OS, are able to handle the work of many people if only the 
application software were available. The ``single-user'' operating 
systems from Microsoft require the purchase of a personal computer 
and software licenses for every user and it is incredibly wasteful. 
Because of the Microsoft monopoly, tax dollars are purchasing 50 to 
100 times as many computers as are really needed with similar 
inefficiencies in software licensing.
    As a computer scientist and a tax payer, I hope to see the 
Microsoft monopoly completely dismantled so a more efficient method 
of computing can be adopted.
    Allan Tingey
    University of Utah
    20 South 2030
    East Salt Lake City, UT 84112
    810-581-4157
    [email protected]



MTC-00008275

From: Diane (038) Roland Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that Microsoft has done no wrong and should not be 
punished for their actions. Was Ford guilty in the early 1900's, 
when he dominated the auto industry? The courts said no. I see a 
remarkable similarity to the Microsoft suit, and the Ford suit. 
Those who can't compete, have a ``sour grapes'' attitude. I worked 
on top secret programs that the government and the vendor both used 
Microsoft programs to exchange data via the internet, because the 
``system'' worked. This saved the government and the taxpayer lots 
of money.
    Microsoft has done the world a favor by developing what amounts 
to be a ``standard'' that the world can use to advance all parties. 
To punish them for this great accomplishment, would be wrong. All 
government, should stay out of business that does no one harm. If 
you want to get involved in bad business practices, look into Enron. 
How about when oil companies ``conspire'' to raise prices ($3.00/
gal) for no reason?
    Thank you for your time and efforts.
    H.R. Freeman
    [email protected]



MTC-00008276

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Robert Lyday'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Don't Settle with Microsoft
    The government's proposed settlement is a disaster. Please do 
not settle according to these standards! Hold out for a settlement 
that will really hold MS' feet to the fire! The government's 
settlement will do almost nothing at all to stop MS' illegal 
behavior, which has almost destroyed computing. MS must be stopped 
for the sake of the industry and businesses and consumers all over 
the world! Bob
    Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows '95.



MTC-00008277

From: Dan Broughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish to express my opinion that this litigation has gone on 
long enough! Without Microsoft where would PC users be? Would the 
``information superhighway'' be all that it has become without the 
innovative software produced by Microsoft? The answer to both these 
questions is no! It`s beyond me why the FEDS deem success a criminal 
act.
    SETTLE THE DAMN THING, ALREADY--I AM SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IT!!!
    Dan



MTC-00008278

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: As taxpayers and citizens of the US, we are frustrated by 
the ongoing legal battle waged by your department against Microsoft. 
It is time to move on. The proposed remedies are enough! Let's move 
on and spend our energies and resources on rebuilding our damaged 
nation, not on tearing down one of our most innovative companies. 
Let's use our resources, enriched by Microsoft and other technology-
related companies, to take our country to the next level.
    Accept the proposed settlement and encourage the hold-out states 
to do the same.
    Thank you,
    Callene Lumbard
    Callene Lumbard
    4600 177 Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98006
    425-641-3688
    [email protected]



MTC-00008279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25007]]

    Please add my name to the list of those who strongly oppose the 
proposed settlement agreement. The proposed settlement does nothing 
to curb the competitive tactics of a proven monopolistic predator 
and Microsoft continues to violate provisions of the Sherman Act 
(i.e., break the law) even as I type this e-mail. Surely our legal 
system can do more to ensure justice than the politically inspired 
``sell out'' agreement offered by the Justice Department.
    Mike Perkins



MTC-00008280

From: Michael Brunskill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Public Comment Period
    Dear Sirs,
    As a computer user who has participated in the evolution of 
computer systems from the old teletype terminals of the Dartmouth 
Timesharing System on which I learned to program in Basic in 1973 to 
the incredible PC technology that exists today, I can say 
emphatically that Microsoft has done more to improve and enhance 
computing than any other single entity.
    To say that Microsoft has stiffled competition is ludicrous. The 
cost of software, absolute and relative, has plunged dramatically 
because of the WORLD's acceptance Microsoft's Windows operating 
system. The very fact that the closest competitor, LINUX, is FREE to 
consumers proves this point. Another competing product to 
Microsoft's Office product line, Star Office, is also FREE, and like 
all others that want to have any chance of acceptance, the files are 
fully exchangeable with Microsoft systems. I well remember the days 
of several competing word processing systems, none of which were 
interchangeable, which truly hampered commerce. Microsoft, though 
it's innovation and superior products, has set the standard 
WORLDWIDE for consumer software interoperability far better than any 
government organization ever could. This in turn has lead to 
sustained increases in worker productivity, which have been a major 
factor in the economic boom of the 90's.
    One of the largest detractors of Microsoft is America OnLine. 
While Microsoft has opened up it's operating system to any competent 
software developer, AOL software is proprietary and closed. They do 
not use industry standards for such basic services as email and news 
services, requiring the use of their unique software for this 
purpose. Please consider the source in evaluating the objections to 
this settlement, which is still punative to Microsoft in my opinion 
and entirely uneccessary.
    Best Regards
    Mike Brunskill
    76 Cranbury Neck Road
    Cranbury, NJ 08512
    [email protected]



MTC-00008281

From: J MALLOY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has built the best mousetrap. Let them sell it.
    Why should my cost include the wages of half of the lawyers in 
Washington. Please draw this to a close.



MTC-00008282

From: Bertram Kundert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:48pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    As an IT professional of 11 years standing, I have little 
confidence that the stated remedies will do much to restrain 
Microsoft from past anti-competitive practices. More safe guards and 
clear punishment for transgressions need to be in place. As long as 
they can claim that adding programs to the operating system is 
``innovation'' they can use their monopoly power to squeeze out any 
new concept that appears, and claim it for themselves. This is how 
they have consistently acted in the past and there seems no reason 
to believe that they will change in the future.
    Bertram Kundert
    University of Utah
    101 Wasatch Drive
    Eccles Broadcast Center
    Salt Lake City,
    Utah 84112
    801-581-5698
    [email protected]



MTC-00008283

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern, I feel strongly that the current 
settlement that was reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department 
is fair and equitable. It makes no sense to continue the current law 
suit being made by several states. If half of the current law suit 
particpants agreed to the settlement, then why are the half trying 
to prolong the process. The longer the case continues, the more it 
going to cost the tax payers. Microsoft has been a pillar for the 
High Tech industry and without them and their contributions, I don't 
believe the many industries that exists today could have existed. 
Microsoft is a business that has been very successful and because 
they have been successful, others in the same field are just jealous 
of their accomplishements. How many companies in the world have not 
done ``things'' that would increase their assets, even if it were a 
little not according to Anti-Monopoly rules.
    I am glad that the current judge in this case is taking the 
appropriate actions to end this ridicules time consuming case 
against a respectable company that has been and will continue to be 
successful. Their projects and service to the customers is great and 
to say that they are monopolizing the software market, and that 
consumers do not have a choice, is really stupid. Let the company be 
and stop wasting tax payers money for a few companies that can't 
stand the competition.



MTC-00008284

From: Linda Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I give thanks that a settlement can be reached and am anxious 
for this great company to be able to get back to work on what they 
do best without fear of government intervention.
    Linda Johnson, 308 Seventh Street
    Fort Madison, Iowa 52627



MTC-00008285

From: Jim McKinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the government should be happy with any settlement from 
Microsoft. In my opinion, the government should leave Microsoft 
alone to do whatever is necessary for it (and the rest of the tech 
industry) to survive.
    Jim McKinney
    14691 Bueno Drive
    Chino Hills, CA 91709
    Professor, Mathematics; Calif. State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona



MTC-00008286

From: herb1000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time the DOJ put this mess to rest. We do not approve 
of our tax dollars being used to help certain competitors compete 
with Microsoft. This is supposed to be a free market. If IBM's OS2, 
Linux and Unix cannot compete with Windows, it is not the Goverments 
problem. You are in danger of unfairly destroying the only 
competition the huge AOL-Time Warner conglomorate has.
    This has never been about protecting consumers.......it IS about 
helping certain competitors who made some poor business decisions.
    Herb & Loretta DeVaan
    1749 Tanner Circle Henderson NV 89012
    [email protected]



MTC-00008287

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:54pm
Subject: MS Opinion
    We need a technologist and entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Let's 
settle this thing and move on, hopefully without disabling the 
software and costing the consumer more money.
    Having lived in the silicon valley for some 20+years, I have 
confidence that technology will always be competitive.



MTC-00008288

From: EDWARD W REID
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice: For years the competitors of Microsoft 
have been trying to force it to permit them to use its successful 
technology, a technology which they themselves could not develop, 
and in the process tried to viciously destroy Microsoft. Microsoft 
quite naturally resisted these efforts, but finally an agreement has 
been reached by most of those involved. However, a small remaining 
greedy cadre of states and competitors are hanging on for the 
``kill''.

[[Page 25008]]

The judge should recognize the motivations of this cadre and end 
this process with the Agreement for the good of the country



MTC-00008289

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:56pm
Subject: Settlement
    I cannot understand why this case is still going on because of a 
few states who apparently are not tending their own affairs and are 
cheating their constituents while they are squandering their time 
and their state's money while they are away from the real work they 
should be doing and wallowing in their 5 minutes of fame.
    Microsoft has done more for more people throughout the world 
than any other company in history. Thanks to Bill Gates and 
Microsoft, and the wise decision I made years ago to buy their 
stock, I am assured of a decent retirement. I am sick and tired of 
seeing success being punished in our country and as soon as someone 
has it the leeches come out of the woodwork to bleed them dry with 
idiotic lawsuits, etc. PLEASE, let's get over it and let Microsoft 
progress and continue to do so much good for so many.
    Malena Preston
    Bothell, WA.



MTC-00008290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn't it about time to let go and let the settlement go forward.
    Billy P. Langfeldt, 3115 25th Street, Boulder, CO 80304-2842 
[email protected]. Let it GO!!



MTC-00008291

From: Oscar Myre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I find the proposed Microsoft settlement to be 
unacceptable.
    It fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: 
halting the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry, 
and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Please don't except the settlement. Thank you.
    God Bless,
    Oscar Myre
    http://omoriginals.com
    360.575.9839 (office)
    305.422.8285 (fax)



MTC-00008292

From: Fred Fiechter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Let the Microsoft settlement stand and keep the few 
special interests with their large lobying budgets out of the 
resolution process. Our system of justice and our nation are ready 
to move on in the interest of fairness and the American economic 
system. Enough is enough!
    Frederick C. Fiechter III
    162 Stone Block Row
    Wilm., DE 19807
    (302)656-6643



MTC-00008293

From: Nick Trikouros
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion this has been a plot by Microsoft's competitors to 
derail the company. ``We can't compete with them so lets get 
together and sue.'' What went on in the Jackson court was a 
travesty. That he is still a sitting judge is a joke. I also believe 
that this case has harmed our economy by giving the EC an excuse to 
follow through with their version. I can't prove this, but I feel 
that they (EC) were emboldened to stop the GE/Honeywell merger. This 
situation with the states not excepting the compromise is nothing 
but politics by the (would be Governors/Senators) State Attorney 
Generals. For the sake of the industry and our economy, this should 
end now.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas M. Trikouros



MTC-00008294

From: Atlas Int'l
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe the DOJ has buckled to the very thugs it purports to 
protect U.S. citizens from. Microsoft has done nothing but bully its 
way to the top of the technology heap by infiltrating one segment of 
tech business sector after the other, infecting each with its own 
brand of assimilation or destruction.
    In `punishing' Microsoft by literally forcing it into a market 
in which it is yet have a stranglehold (the education market) you 
are in effect bowing to the power of the `almighty' MS. This disease 
of a company needs to be broken up, disbanded or otherwise 
prohibited from entering and dominating other markets--not forced 
into ones they've yet to conquer.
    Please know that I could easily write volumes on topics ranging 
from free competition, business ethics, the bastardization of 
corporate America right down to basic criminal acts and corporate 
responsibility. But, as you are no doubt busy weeding through 
hundreds of thousands of such letters, let me just cast my vote of 
disapproval at the job being done by the government.
    Boo!
    Bob Holkan
    8109 Otium Way
    Antelope, CA
    95843 (916) 725-4055



MTC-00008295

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider immediate settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case. Only competitors of MS and the various attorneys benefit from 
dragging it on and on.
    Regards,
    Tom and Betty Carhart, Houston, Texas



MTC-00008296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this litigation should stop right now. The settlement is 
fair, and any delay can only prolong the recession.
    Frank Keeshan



MTC-00008297

From: Spilger Philip G (Phil) PSNS
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Department of Justice,
    As a consumer, I want to see this lawsuit against Microsoft 
settled. My own personal opinion is we consumers have only benefited 
from the Microsoft Corporation's innovations. The accusations 
against Microsoft are ludicrous. 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.
    Phil Spilger, 10838 Evergreen Terrace SW,
    Lakewood, WA. 98498



MTC-00008298

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This has dragged on long enough. The settlement agreed upon by 
the U.S. Gov't and the nine states involved is fair and settling 
this now is certainly in the best interest of the public. We do not 
need more prolonged litigation.
    Settle!
    Carol R. Lawrence



MTC-00008299

From: davidhenryart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support a prompt settlement to the Microsoft suit.
    David Henry



MTC-00008300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am writing this e-mail to let you know what I think of your 
attack on Microsoft.
    It seems to me that the DOJ misunderstands basic economics. In a 
free society the market will set prices and standards that they are 
willing to pay. And, if a company tries to charge to much for their 
product competition will bring them back to a rational price or in 
to bankruptcy. Competition is what moves us forward, without it 
their would be no need to advance because their would be no 
incentive. Competition is what weeds out the companies that don't 
have the insight to move forward. But this is not a bad thing. A

[[Page 25009]]

company is trying to get a piece of the market share. They do this 
by getting the best product for the best price to the customer. If a 
company cannot do this it is not their competitors fault. The market 
will always weed out those companies that don't make the most out of 
their resources. More govt controls are not what is needed. If you 
look into your history books you will see what that has done over 
and over again. It has and will crush progress every time. So I hope 
that America can become the first country to recognize it before it 
crushes us.
    In conclusion I would like to state that each individual knows 
or should know their economic priorities. Man is not born with the 
right to have a computer or a certain software system. Microsoft nor 
any other company owes them anything. If they like the product and 
have the economic means to purchase it they should, if not so be it. 
It is not up to the government to decide which company we put our 
money into.
    Thank you for your time
    Ray Kilmer



MTC-00008301

From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies/gentlemen:
    Reject the arguments of the neo-Fascists who are still 
attempting to crucify Microsoft--for doing what Capitalists are 
supposed to do: Use creativity to make our lives better. No one has 
ever forced anyone else to use Internet Explorer, or any other 
Microsoft product. All of Microsoft's ``competitors'' have been free 
to develop better, more attractive products; none of the 
``competitors'' should be allowed to use DoJ or U.S. Taxpayers' 
money to attack Microsoft.
    Tell each who wishes to use the U.S. Government as a club to 
``get a life.''
    Thanks/regards,
    Dan Warrensford
    40 Uranus Ave. Merritt Island FL 32953-3158 (321) 453-2217; 
[email protected]



MTC-00008302

From: Douglas Mayne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly:
    Here are my comments regarding the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Anti-trust Case.
    1. The difference between Judge Jackson's proposed breakup and 
the proposed settlement is much too great. This gives the perception 
that a company can win if it can just outlast those pursuing it. The 
judiciary should be more stable than the executive, and not appear 
to flow with changes in administration.
    2. While Judge Jackson's behavior outside the court was stupid 
and a poor example to set as the court's representative, it should 
not have bearing on the finding of fact. However, if his behaviour 
is deemed too egregious, then start over from the beginning.
    3. Microsoft's behaviour at trial was outrageous and 
contemptible. Here is a specific instance which stands out: the 
infamous Internet Explorer video with James Allchin on the stand. 
This video was requested by the court and was willfully manipulated 
to show an untruth. The video was a mockery, and Allchin and others 
responsible should be held accountable. It should not be just 
``another product demo'' when presenting evidence in a U.S. court 
proceeding. Also, Gates statements about Microsoft keeping the 
companies overall financial records using paper and pencil were 
outrageous lies, considering his statements in ``The Road Ahead.''
    4. Microsoft's agenda is to make money. They have been 
successful in capturing market share in every segment of the 
software industry where they chosen to compete. It has been noted 
that Microsoft's cash reserves can be used to out spend any rival in 
product advertising and governmental lobbying.
    5. Microsoft's business agenda does not complement the nation's 
desire to secure its computer infrastructure. Microsoft's software 
vulnerabilities have led to exploitation and business interruption. 
Any settlement, short of the breakup, needs to address how Microsoft 
will work with the software community to address this serious 
problem. The ``code red'' virus has shown a few infected systems 
connected to a high speed network can do great damage.
    6. Microsoft's business agenda forces an ``upgrade path'' upon 
end users to ensure a continuing revenue stream. This is not 
necessary or rational, especially now that the PC has matured and 
works well enough for everyday business use. Software should be 
treated the same as a ``consumer durable good,'' much like a washing 
machine. Case in point: the comparable prices for Office XP and a 
Maytag washer. Microsoft's approach is to simply declare software 
obsolete, and unsupported after a specified date. This is not the 
best choice for business, as new versions always contain bugs and 
vulnerabilities. The maturity of Windows NT at Service Pack 6 
provides a stable base to build a business on, and appears to have 
advantages over later, more complex software such as Windows 2000 or 
Windows XP.
    Because Microsoft holds the copyright to their software, they 
can choose to market it how they please, or withdraw it from the 
market entirely. This limits consumer choice and is unfair.
    In the breakup scenario, I envisioned the ``children'' competing 
against one another to distiguish their product. A product offering 
the most stable and secure platform would have had appeal to 
business users, and would have been worth supporting through 
continuing fees for bug and security fixes. Without the breakup, 
this is an unlikely outcome as Microsoft sees there is much more 
profit in entirely new versions.
    7. Without a major remedy, Microsoft's egregious behaviour will 
continue. Consumers will have less choice and be forced to pay the 
monopolist's price. This is the continuing harm to consumers which 
was a finding of fact.
    Thank You,
    Douglas D. Mayne
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00008303

From: Malcolm C King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: the good it has done..
    Without Windows from Microsoft, I wouldn't have a computer, know 
what the Internet was nor have a lot of contact with the world of 
2002. I am stunned by what the DofJ thinks is wrong with Microsoft. 
As usual, no one in the real world (non-government) is offended, 
hurt nor angry with someone who has done a good thing for the 
majority of of Americans. Show me the millions of people that 
complained about ``M'' then go after them with all your might. Until 
then chase the millions of truly bad people there are in Americe, 
like the FBI office in Boston.



MTC-00008304

From: laverne(u)jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Tunney Act should be accepted as law, and the oppressive law 
suite against Microsoft ended. The court of appeals ruling seems to 
be fair to all parties. I do not think that further action against 
Microsoft is in the public's best interest.



MTC-00008305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and fair and 
that it is time to put an end to all litigation regarding this 
matter. Please add my name to the list of those in favor of the 
settlement and make my opinion known to the District Court.
    God Bless America,
    Rosemary Montesi
    15 Westway Road
    Wayland, MA 01778



MTC-00008306

From: Alys Hinkle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My personal opinion is that Microsoft is the only software 
company that provided the public with the tools necessary to use the 
internet. Originally all of the software programs written for the 
computer; with the exception of Apple and the only programs that 
were written for Apple had to be used on a Apple computer, therefore 
if you owned anyother brand of computer Apple software was not 
compatible; were individual programs, the public had to be a 
computer wizard or guru to make them fit together, the only way 
business's could operate was to take individual reports from each 
software company and put them together by hand, none of the programs 
integrated. Microsoft's generosity gave the public the tools it 
needed to use the computer for all aspects of a business operation, 
from writing letters, to posting reminders on payments due, to 
business reports that allowed consolidated financial information 
available for day to day operations of their business.
    At the time Microsoft put together the consolidated computer 
program that a

[[Page 25010]]

layman could understand and use, the other computer companies 
offered only spread sheets, letter writing programs, etc. that an 
individual had to have the training to put that information together 
with another report before the information was usable.
    I believe Microsoft was a public servant, they refined the 
reports and programs so that the individual could use them in the 
manner in which the bookkeeping world had recorded it's information 
from the beginning. Microsoft allowed the small business man to gain 
information perternant to his business with the same speed and 
accuracy that big business had been able to do, allowing the middle 
man to operate more competitively.
    If the companies bringing the lawsuits against Microsoft had 
been as wise as Microsoft and offered their reports and information 
to the public that was usable by the public, before Microsoft they 
would have gained the same amount of public esteem and been as 
fortunate as Microsoft.
    I feel the suit against Microsoft should be settled, without 
added penalties, I feel Microsoft has given the people a tool that 
no one else could deliver, and with their help the economy has 
benefitted as well as Microsoft.
    Alys Hinkle, 290 Adams Street, Lander, WY 82520
    307-332-3756



MTC-00008307

From: Elaine Sipes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:20pm
Subject:
    It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's back. I 
think that It is time that the govenrment get off of Microsoft's 
back. I think that the states still trying to battle this issue are 
just trying to get a free hand out of cash. Thank God for Bill 
Gates, and the jobs that he has brought to the Pacific Northwest. It 
is time for the money grabbers in government to BACK OFF.
    Elaine Sipes



MTC-00008308

From: Kupfer, Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement. As research 
shows there is a significant gap along economic lines in 
availability of technology. 82% of the classrooms in richer 
communities are connected to the Internet while only 60%of the 
classroons in lower income classrooms have access. Funds are tight 
in Wisconsin due to our revenue control law which limits the amount 
a school district can raise to fund education.In addition we have a 
huge budget deficit. Education is one area that is being talked 
aboaut as a source of money to help balance the budget. Many schools 
need computers and Internet for their students. This would help them 
tremendously. Life is not a level playing field for many of our 
students. Their families cannot afford computers at home so school 
is the one place that they may have access to them and the help they 
bring. There is a huge world out there that many would never know 
without the Internet.
    Educators must be trained to use the technology so they can 
comfortably implement it in the classroom. It is the teacher in the 
classroom that most influences the student mastery and use of new 
knowledge. The component of teacher training is critical.
    I hope that the court will support the goals as set forth in the 
settlement. If we truly are to leave no child behind we must give 
them all the tools they need to be successful.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ellen Kupfer
    KEA, President
    CC:weac.org



MTC-00008309

From: kirsten matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    PLEASE SETTLE THIS CASE!
    ONLY IN AMERICA WOULD OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GO AFTER THE ONE 
COMPANY WHO HAS DONE THE MOST TO DRIVE THE ECONOMY.
    SHOW ME ANOTHER COMPANY WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORLD AS MUCH 
AS MICROSOFT.
    I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY YEARS THIS HAS BEEN ON GOING!
    SINCERELY,
    KIRSTEN
    MATSON



MTC-00008311

From: Bill Brent
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the United States Government and the Justice Department 
to refrain from punishing Microsoft any further. Their actions do 
not warrant prosecution by the Justice Department under the 
antitrust laws. They have not coerced anyone. They are being 
punished simply for being better than their competitors.
    Bill Brent
    Writer
    Portland, Oregon



MTC-00008312

From: Gloria Gottiaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should now be settled once and for all.
    Gloria Gottiaux



MTC-00008313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at the he 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is FAR TOO LENIENT!
    Among the settlements obvious flaws are:
    NO punishment for past behavior.
    NO attempt to make them lose the spoils of their crimes
    NOT leveling the competitive playing field enough Without 
stronger government intervention Microsoft will control the Instant 
Messaging and Media Player markets using same tactics they used in 
the Browser markets--UNFAIR BUNDLING.
    Read the popular press! EVERY JOURNALIST FROM JUST ABOUT EVERY 
PUBLICATION AGREES THE SETTLEMENT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH.
    Sincerely
    Michael A Fitzgerald
    Alexandria, VA



MTC-00008314

From: Ralph Weil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle this problem with Microsoft and let us get back to 
the business of growing America stronger.
    Ralph Weil



MTC-00008315

From: Jack C Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    I feel that the justice system is entirely wrong in allowing the 
legal action against Microsoft to continue. Not only has it taken 
money from taxpayers and shuffled it into the pockets of the 
attorneys but the public is suffering as a result of Microsoft not 
being able to develop new generation products.
    PLEASE, stop this insanity and let the many schools profit from 
the receipt of the free computer systems that Microsoft has agreed 
to provide!
    Jack C. Moore
    330 Hollipat Center Drive, #18
    Santa Barbara, California, 93111



MTC-00008316

From: Dixon Teter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs: As a U. S. citizen and as a consumer I am served 
extremely well by a free market. Your continued persecution of 
businesses and of Microsoft in particular is both economically and 
morally wrong. Without Mr. Gates brilliant creation: Microsoft, we 
all would be computing 20 years in the past. They compete by bring 
us ever more powerful computing tools and at ever less expensive 
prices. To viciously attack such a company--attacks begun and 
continued primarily out of petty jealousy, the inability to compete, 
and partisan politics--has cost the consumer dearly because 
Microsoft has been forced to waste incredible assets that could have 
been used to develop even more great products.
    Your unwarranted attacks on Microsoft have cost hundreds of 
billions of dollars in wealth as the result of their causing the 
Stock Market to lose a tremendous amount of equity--in short you 
have contributed to the enormous slide in the entire sector of 
businesses that includes Microsoft.
    Do the right thing and just drop it. Do our country and the 
economy a huge favor. Kindly desist.

[[Page 25011]]

    Drop the suit without prejudice. This has a precedence in the 
past with the wrongful IBM suit. Be bold.
    Sincerely,
    Dixon Teter, Ph.D.



MTC-00008317

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:37pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I would like to write a letter saying Leave Microsoft alone, but 
please advise.
    Carol Richner
    A Fan of Bill Gates



MTC-00008318

From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement
    Robert J. Lantz



MTC-00008319

From: Joelle Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For nearly four years, this lawsuit has been dragging on. I 
believe that this settlement is absolutely a good thing and is in 
the public interest. It's tough on Microsoft, but reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. As a consumer, I overwhelmingly agree 
that settlement is good for me, the industry and the American 
economy. Let's not prolong this litigation in the midst of uncertain 
economic times. The last thing this country needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation. 
Microsoft has never harmed consumers, all they've done is make great 
software and be a strong competitor. Microsoft's competitors are 
trying to waste our tax dollars by competing with Microsoft through 
the court systems, instead of having the courage to do it in the 
marketplace. I SUPPORT THIS SETTLEMENT! Let's move on, put an end to 
this case and spend my tax dollars on more worthy causes. Like 
ending terrorism!!! Thank you for giving me an opportunity to 
express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Joelle S. Thompson
    San Clemente, CA



MTC-00008320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Further litigation is wasteful--let all parties involved except 
the current Judge's decision.



MTC-00008321

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the settlement made with Sicrosoft was fair & 
equitable. In our opinion, Microsoft has been instrumential in the 
advancement the use of technology which has led to our long bear 
market. Let things stand as agreed, and encourage the other 9 states 
to drop the matter.



MTC-00008323

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Will you people please do whatever it takes to settle the 
Microsoft litigation so that technology can continue to march 
forward in the 21st century. Four years ago I paid $79.00 for 
Windows. Today I bought my 4th copy of Turbotax by Quicken--Total 
cost in 4 years = $160.00. I consider Windows a huge consumer 
advantage when I can perform multiple tasks vs. Turbotax, double the 
money, for a limited capability. I do not believe you should open a 
case on Quicken, but any idiot who says Microsoft has not been 
consumer friendly is simply misinformed.
    Walter Strain



MTC-00008324

From: Nolan Lameka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I believe that the current settlement is fair for all parties. 
The dissident states seem to have political motives behind them 
rather than economic.
    Nolan A Lameka



MTC-00008325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it for drying-out-loud. The only reason the few want to 
drag it on is the ``lawyers'' want more case money--they don't give 
a hoot otherwise.
    JKT



MTC-00008326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:53pm
Subject: microsoft
    I wish the government would just get this thing over with so 
Microsoft can keep delivering new products to us computer users and 
my shares will increase again. Fight terrorists not our best 
companies.
    Alan Sirkin



MTC-00008327

From: d-dmiller(a)shaw.ca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:58pm
Subject: Justice
    I wish to request that the court consider the liberty that has 
been provided by the US Constitution and reach the only rational 
conclusion in the Microsoft judgement which is to accept that 
company's complete innocence. At this critical juncture of history, 
America must uphold liberty even more vigilantly. To judge against 
Microsoft would send another chill through business and 
entrepreneurial spirit in America. Do not eat the goose that lays 
the golden egg.
    Dennis R. Miller
    3938 Elsey Lane
    Victoria BC V8X 5K1



MTC-00008328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a writer and constant user of computer programs, I am ever so 
grateful to innovative companies such as Microsoft that have made my 
life so much easier, to say nothing of how much it has improved my 
work and that of millions of others. I am appalled at the attempt to 
tear down a company that has given the whole world so many better 
ways to operate and to communicate. Give me a break! If you have to 
spend your time in litigation of American companies, why not pick on 
the phony sleezeball outfits that target innocent citizens with get-
rich and other bogus schemes. I applaud Microsoft and the rest of 
the world does too, or at least the rest of the ``thinking'' and 
hard-working world.
    Judith Welsh,
    Independent Journalist,
    Miami, Florida



MTC-00008329

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is past time that the DOJ acted in the BEST interest of the 
USA and its citizens. The settlement signed off on is more than 
enough punishment for a case never should have been brought. No 
other country in this world is destructive to the inventions and 
intellectual property successes of its corporations. But for the 
grace of God, the USA has survived the misjudgments (like this one) 
by its government--that goes for antitrust as well as how we the 
people have been protected from enemies who would (and did) kill us. 
Let us not kill our own brilliant ideas anymore.



MTC-00008330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:03pm
Subject: settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel Microsoft should not be penalized for creating a great 
network that has benefited so many.
    Many of his competitors are greedy and want his fame. Let Bill 
Gates and Microsoft go and let then invent many wonderful things to 
make life easy and safe.
    Sincerely,
    Valerie Rogers,
    Louisville, KY



MTC-00008331

From: McCarthy, Kathleen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I live in Utah. I was told you were looking for opinions as Utah 
wants to pursue harsher punishment against Microsoft. My opinion is 
that my state should not try to pursue harsher punishment. I think 
they should just go with the current settlement and be done with it.

[[Page 25012]]

Spend my tax dollars on pursuing things like violent crimes.
    Kathleen McCarthy
    Citrix/Client Support
    Admin Computing Services
    University of Utah



MTC-00008332

From: marv matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    PLEASE APPROVE THE MICROSOFT SETTELMENT AND LET THIS OUTSTANDING 
COMPANY LEAD US OUT OF THE DEPRESSION. EIGHT YEARS OF LITIGATION HAS 
COST EVERY AMERICAN WHO HAS A RETIREMENT PLAN TENS OF THOUSAND OF 
DOLLARS. ANY COUNTRY WOULD WELCOME MICROSOFT MOVING TO THEIR 
COUNTRY. LETS STOP THE LITIGATION AND LET MICROSOFT CONTINUE THE 
INNOVATION THAT DRIVES THE ECONOMY.
    M.L.MATSON
    TACOMA,WA



MTC-00008334

From: John Robert Hooten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    January 2, 2002
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN;
    Please register my support for the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft litigation. While I support the proposed settlement, I 
thought the entire litigation was absurd and a situation where 
certain competitors were successful in convincing the government 
that the government should try to even the playing field when the 
competition could not win by competition. The litigation should not 
have been commenced in the first place.
    Like so many other so-called ``senior citizens'' (those over 65, 
I guess) before the Microsoft Windows program came out, I had no 
idea how to operate a computer or to even turn it on. After Windows 
came out, I found that operating a computer was easy for one who 
knows virtually nothing about computers.
    Because of the ease of operating the computer brought about by 
Microsoft for the general public, the company should be given credit 
for helping the public rather than attempting to punish Microsoft 
for becoming successful and bringing the world of computers to 
people like me.
    Do not let anyone convince you that Microsoft has done anything 
bad for the public because that is not true. The opposite is true. 
Now that the government and most states have agreed to settle the 
litigation, the settlement should be approved. The government should 
go about performing governmental functions and the competition 
should go about trying to make a better product for the public.
    John Robert Hooten
    P.O. Box 452
    Oriental, N.C. 28571
    Tel # 252-249-2015
    cell # 252-526-1111



MTC-00008335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The damage that is being done to the US technical world postion 
by the the lawsuit is terrible. Only the lawyers are making out. I 
can't believe the greed of the states and companies for not going 
along with the settlement.
    Microsoft has done more for this country than any other 
technical company in the last 15 years. They should be rewarded for 
their contributions to the country and world. Please stop and 
consider how Microsoft software know -how has impacted every area of 
our lives. Where would we be today in the fields of medicine, 
engineering, economics, military and many others without the 
Microsoft. Also, please don't forget the the contributions Mr. Gates 
has made through his trust funds to various charitable 
organizations.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Dougherty



MTC-00008336

From: Lee Moulds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am disappointed to learn that the Microsoft Settlement may not 
go through. It has taken four years to reach this settlement, which 
appears to be fair to all parties concerned. Please do whatever is 
necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion so that ``business'' 
can move forward.
    Thank you,
    Mildred Lee Moulds,
    Phoenix, MD



MTC-00008337

From: james newcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it Now!! Enough already. Too much even!! Let's got on 
with free enterprise, the American way,
    Etc. Quit wasting Tax dollars.. Thanks. FED UP



MTC-00008338

From: dave rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is Microsoft a monopoly? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. Give businessmen a break. It 
is the only way our country will progress. Why don't you attack the 
trial lawyers with the vigor you attack business?
    David rose
    5 ellen rd
    Marblehead, MA



MTC-00008339

From: J Tanne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:13pm
Subject: Rejection of Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Attorney General, Members of the Department of 
Justice: I, my family, and many of my friends and business 
associates are extremely concerned over the lack of fortitude in the 
offer drawn between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
Corporation. The proposed settlement does NOTHING to make repair to 
the damages done through years and years of unrestrained illegal 
behavior by Microsoft and its executives and will do NOTHING to 
level the playing field and bring competition to what was once a 
thriving industry. Even now as civil suits are being settled, 
Microsoft is walking away unscathed and in some instances planting 
the seeds for future market domination. Somehow the mistakes of the 
1995 consent decree are dangerously close to being repeated. Please 
reconsider this settlement and reconstruct it to offer a REAL remedy 
to the Microsoft situation. Until a remedy which TRULY protects 
consumers and encourages competition can be reached keep, please the 
case alive and in pursuit of a suitable and practical remedy.
    Regards,
    James Tanne
    190 N 980 E
    Lindon, UT
    84042



MTC-00008340

From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:16pm
Subject: One additional Comment
    As I've been reading through the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
I have yet to see (what I feel) is one of the most troubling issues. 
I refer to the fact that many web sites use Microsoft specific 
technology that allow only Windows users to access features on their 
sites.
    On Yahoo, there are various stories that are available on Yahoos 
ON24 service. If you're an Apple (or Linux) user, you're told that 
only the windows operating system is supported. The other day I was 
at an auto shopping site and clicked a button to price a car. Once 
again I received a message saying ``Your operating system is not 
supported by this site'' If this type of behavior represented 
isolated instances, it wouldn't bother me, but it is becoming more 
prevalent on the internet. As an Apple user, I find this very 
annoying as well as highly discriminatory.
    Basically I'm being told to get rid of my Apple and buy a PC if 
I want access. The whole concept of the internet is freedom. 
Microsoft has taken that from many of us I think any settlement 
should address these issues, by forcing companies (Microsoft 
specifically) to produce software that allows all internet users 
(regardless of operating system) to be granted the same access to 
all websites. I further believe that large corporations such as 
Yahoo, AOL and others be prevented from offering Widows only 
services. Only when specific services are available to all, should 
they be allowed to offer them.
    I feel this will go a long way to putting a dent in Microsoft's 
monopolistic behavior
    Thank you for your time
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25013]]

    Anthony J Palumbo
    80 Ridge Road
    Hackettstown, NJ



MTC-00008341

From: Bob Harper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I think that the issue with Microsoft has gone on for long 
enough and that the government needs to bring the matter to an end.
    I have been working in the technology arena for the past 15 
years. There are many instances where innovative companies such as 
Microsoft have appeared to stiffle competition. In fact, the nature 
and functionality of the product has been the determining factor for 
success or failure of companies.
    I would urge that the United States Government highly suggest to 
all states to find a settlement with Microsoft so that no more money 
is wasted.
    Respectively,
    Robert C. Harper



MTC-00008342

From: Greg Schroer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Dear Department of Justice:
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I request that the DOJ settle the Microsoft lawsuit as it is now 
proposed. Contrary to what others may say, Micorsoft has done 
wonders for my ability, and many others, to create and maintain a 
small business.
    Without their quality, integrated software I would not be able 
to manage my business, and it also would have created problems in 
most other businesses. Microsoft products are excellent and that 
company should not be critized for doing a good job at innovating 
effective software that benefits most of the world. Please settle 
this case as soon as possible.
    Greg Schroer
    4308 106th PL NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033
    425/828-3858 (Fax:425/828-3543)



MTC-00008343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think enough time and money has been spent on this suit. As a 
taxpayer I have certainly not received any benefit from it. On the 
other hand, as a consumer, Microsoft has been of great benefit to me 
and to my elderly Dad. After my Mother died he was pretty lost, but 
having a computer and being able to access so easily so many 
things--he shops on line--and can e-mail family and friends out of 
state, has made a big difference in his life and in his children' 
and grandchildren's. The settlement has been reached and I think 
that the various states attorneys general still whining, like the 
one from Massachusetts, are just making political hay.Microsoft has 
been a boon to a great many people. If we are going to start chasing 
successfull businesses because they have deep pockets, then I think 
the role of the government is being perverted. Let the settlement 
stand. Enough already.
    Diane Parry



MTC-00008344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has come to my attention that the Federal Gov. is still 
pursuing the Microsoft case.
    As a consumer, I have no particular interest in the Microsoft 
Company, but I do use their products. I have been around long enough 
to watch what happened to the telephone company and disaster that 
continue to spawn out of that mess that us consumers have to pay for 
in time, money, and inconvenience.
    The government has an agreement with Microsoft, why do you need 
to continue to look for ways to interfere with their quality 
products and service to us consumers?
    In other words, please stop your hounding of this company and 
divert your efforts and money to more important dangers such as the 
safety of our country.
    Thank you,
    Elizabeth Morris
    [email protected]



MTC-00008345

From: Gary Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. I vote to settle this case, and move on.
    Netscape/AOL, Sun, Real Player are poor players. I have and use 
them all. How about getting these players to improve their products.
    So far, they're almost loosers.
    Gary Anderson,
    Florida.



MTC-00008346

From: Valerie R. Hummel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    It is time to settle and let Microsoft and the American economy 
get back to business... the Business of Innovation, which makes us a 
great Nation!
    I held stock in Microsoft and lost thousands of dollars, just 
like many others in this country. I no longer have the stock, so 
your decision will not directly affect me, but it affects all of us 
indirectly when the economy is hurt by this special interest 
lawsuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    All companies do business the way Microsoft does. They try to be 
the best and beat there competitors full stop!! In this case several 
of Microsoft's competitors had friends in our government.
    This lawsuit was not for the Consumer!!! Don't make the mistake 
of thinking that the American public see our government as 
protecting them from the big bad Microsoft...they don't!!!!!!!!! 
They see powerful government officials using their influence to help 
their powerful friends (competitors of Microsoft)!!! They see you 
hurting their stock portfolio and the economy as a 
whole!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! 
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Valerie R. Hummel MCSE
    1430 Hwy 87 East
    Billings, MT 59101
    (406)867-7685
    [email protected]



MTC-00008347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January  3, 2002
To: The Department of Justice
    I urge you to settle the Microsoft case now. Don't let the 
aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors 
derail the settlement reached by the federal government and nine 
states. The settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. I overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is in 
the best interests of consumers, the industry and the American 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Rips
    2049 Milan Ave.
    South Pasadena, CA 91030
    CC:RFC-822=Finflash1-2-02.UM.A.1154.142@commpartners....



MTC-00008348

From: Lee Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement between the DoJ and Microsoft 
for the following reasons.
    (1) There is no punishment within it. Microsoft was found 
guilty, and that finding should have some consequences. Donating 
software and a bit of hardware costs them nothing.
    (2) It encourages them to strongly enter one of the few markets 
in which they still have competition--the education market--and does 
so in a manner that allows their competitors little voice. Indeed, 
this strategy of giving away software to establish market dominance 
is one they've used several times before. It was one of the bases of 
the browser lawsuit.
    (3) There is little in the agreement to keep Microsoft from 
using its ill-gotten monopolies to stifle future competition. Tthe 
Windows Media Player versus Real Player and QuickTime competition is 
already showing Microsoft to be up to its old tricks in the most 
recent releases of Windows.
    Lee Larson,
    Department of Mathematics,
    University of Louisville
    Phone: 502-852-6826 Fax: 502-852-7132 E-mail: 
[email protected]



MTC-00008349

From: Bill Weirich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I am still trying to determine how I was 
``harmed'' by Microsoft. Their products have helped improve the 
efficiency of Americans and, as a taxpayer, I have resented the 
government's efforts to

[[Page 25014]]

prosecute one of the most successful and innovative corporations in 
the US! I therefore feel that the proposed settlement is more than 
fair and that the US government should find better witches to hunt.
    Bill Weirich
    Matrix Capital Markets Group, Inc.
    11 South 12th Street
    Richmond, VA 23219
    Phone: (804) 780-0060
    Fax: (804) 780-0158
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Web Site: www.matrixcapitalmarkets.com



MTC-00008350

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settement
    Let's get back to innovating and producing by accepting the 
compromise settlement agreement. Lawyers are the only ones to gain 
by continuing to yak and yak.
    James H. Bolender



MTC-00008351

From: Jim Furlong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Can't we get on with things and settle. It's obvious to me that 
the States holding out for a bigger settlement all have business 
interests in seeing Microsoft hurt further (ie Utah,Oracle). Tell 
those states I wouldn't buy any of their winey products, just 
because they can't compete without a tilted playing field.
    Please urge them to settle or you will throw them back to ground 
zero and dismiss all gains agreed to by the other states. 
[email protected]



MTC-00008352

From: Steve Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I beleive that the current Microsoft settlement is fair. Further 
action by the Federal Government as well as the 9 states who 
continue to fight Micrsoft only serves to weaken an industry already 
battered by foriegn competitors using unfair trade practices, an 
economic recession, major downturn in capital spending as well as 
other factors. Let's not turn the US's future competitive advantage 
in software and all- into todays electronics market dominated by 
Asian COUNTRIES and manufacturers. I'm the owner of a small business 
and the less Government interaction / intervention- in business ( 
Federal-State-Local ) the better off EVERYONE is.
    Steve Lussier
    President
    Technico Inc
    Warren Ohio



MTC-00008353

From: Alfred Petermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's about time that this matter is put to rest. For almost four 
years, DOJ has danced with industry advocates that are trying to 
succeed in the court of law because they fail daily in the 
enterprise markets. The people vote with their wallets and they 
support Microsoft products. Just imagine if the government were to 
improve its products annually, increase its service and features and 
then charge less every year for it. Will never happen, that's why 
government proponents are so desperate to derail Microsoft. How much 
damage can you guy do to our economy?
    Alfred R. Petermann
    SpiritMed



MTC-00008354

From: ronnie harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft settlement should be labeled ``microsoft witch 
hunt''... microsoft has done nothing out of the ordinary for modern 
business practices...if microsoft is to be the goat for modern 
business procedures then every other big and middle sized businesses 
should be closed down...if this is what the witch hunters really 
want-then they are a bigger danger to our country than all the 
``outsider''...stop picking on the engines of our economy and let 
them compete with each other without government intervention...
    thank you.



MTC-00008355

From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:39pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone
    THIS THING THAT THE GOVERMENT HAS BEEN DOING TO MICRO SOFT IS A 
DISGRACE TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY. I RECOMMEND THAT 
YOU PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE AND DROP ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE 
BUGGING YOU
    EVERETT BROWN
    MIAMI OK. 74354



MTC-00008356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Computing technology changes very rapidly. (I know I have been 
in computiong for 40 years.) Dominant companies that do not keep up, 
or drop the ball find themselves in oblivion. You cannot blame the 
demise of DEC, Digital, Univac, NCR, and others on Microsoft.
    Please Let Microsoft innovate. It's very important to computing. 
If others cannot keep up, penalizing Microsoft will not give them an 
advantage; it'll just hold the whole industry back.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Zakson



MTC-00008357

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:41pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in total favor of the government settling its claim against 
Microsoft. In my opinion, I feel it was a bogus, costly, 
unjustifiable law suit. It would behoove the government to spend 
taxpayer money on more critical issues than going against a 
successful company that has done nothing but bring prosperity to 
this country. Someone in Washington, DC got greedy and a little 
sidetracked with special interest groups in its pursuit of 
Microsoft. It's time the Democrats worked for the good of this 
country and got off the political merry-go-round it so intently 
works to nourish.
    Cheri Landers



MTC-00008358

From: David Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand the need to finish this case and move on, but 
should we do it without resolving anything? How many times does a 
company need to be taken to court for the same type of actions and 
each time be told to stop doing it? You're like the parents who say 
``No'', but never back it up. No one learns from someone telling 
them, ``Stop, and if you do it again, we're going to tell you to 
stop again!''
    With Windows XP and the .NET strategy, it should be fairly 
obvious that Microsoft does NOT intend to stop anti-competitive 
practices. The .NET strategy alone is a complete step toward total 
domination on the internet. I can't imagine a world where Microsoft 
rules the net. This company can't even protect it's on servers from 
hackers and we're going to let them control commerce on the net?
    If Microsoft had climbed into the position of being the dominant 
one because of better products or better business practices, that 
would be one thing. But, from the start, this company relied on lies 
and bullying to get where it is, and we just tell them to quit. Over 
and over again. As the world becomes even more dependent on the 
computer, we are only allowing Microsoft to completely monopolize 
the situation.
    When you control 90% of the world's computers, you control 
competition. I don't care how competitive the tech world is, you 
can't compete with them.
    When Microsoft integrates products into their operating systems, 
only Microsoft wins. Most users, and this is their own fault, see 
that program there and use it because it's already there for them. 
Why go out and get competitors products if you can get it free from 
Microsoft, even if it is an inferior product? It's like NBC trying 
to run ads on CBS, it's not going to happen and Microsoft knows 
this.
    The problem also is that Microsoft knows that the government 
will not do anything about it. Why stop what got you to the top, if 
there are no consequences?
    Thanks for your time,
    David Stanley



MTC-00008359

From: Joanne Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:42pm

[[Page 25015]]

Subject: microsoft settlement
    We believe the settlement is fair and timely. With the present 
economic situation in the US, it is time to settle and get on with 
other issues that are more important right now, like homeland 
security and national defense against terrorism.
    Sincerely,
    Joanne & Jay Murray



MTC-00008360

From: dan dengel,m.d.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The lawsuit against Microsoft should be settled via the Tunney 
Act. Let's get on with our economy. There's been enough damaging 
litigation which is NOT helping the consumer!
    Daniel M. Dengel M.D.



MTC-00008361

From: rdour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft suit should be settled as quickly as possible with 
little damage to the Company. Microsoft has made a major 
contribution to American industry's productivity, and provided the 
home user with valuable tools.
    The suit should never have been brought against the company.
    Robert Dourian
    9215 Shoshone Ave.
    Northridge, Ca., 91325



MTC-00008362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern. As a strong supporter of Microsoft and 
the free Market system of the United States of America,I can't 
believe that in the year 2002, we still have 9 states still going 
after Microsoft. Don't these Attorney Generals have any thing else 
to do with there time. Maybe they should try getting a life instead 
of making a career going after Microsoft. If I were the governor of 
the 9 Attorney Generals I would fire all of them for wasting the 
peoples money. Maybe they should do there Job and go after real 
criminals instead of protecting Microsofts competitors like Sun 
Microsystems and that idiot larry elison from oricle who everytime 
you see him on TV bashes microsoft. I would love to know maybe 5 or 
10 years from now when these Attorneys leave office who the ex 
Attorney Generals work for or represent in there practices.Would it 
be a surprise or not to see them hook with one of these 
Companies.Only time will tell.Maybe someone should watch them as 
hard as Microsofts Competitors watch Microsoft when they leave 
office.
    Sincerely
    John Redgrave



MTC-00008363

From: SUE HAMILTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom It may Concern
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They have done wonders for our 
country. Do not stifle their new innovative spirit! How can this be 
a monopoly, when Bill Gates and company have done everything from 
square one. The did not buy out or take over any other company; as 
the oil companies are doing. Please let them alone and let them go 
about their business of making our lives easier.
    Sue Hamilton



MTC-00008364

From: Sam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:47pm
Subject: just leave micro soft alone
    THIS THING THAT THE GOVERMENT HAS BEEN DOING TO MICRO SOFT IS A 
DISGRACE TO THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY. I RECOMMEND THAT 
YOU PEOPLE JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE AND DROP ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE 
BUGGING YOU PEOPLE. I RELIVE THAT WITHOUT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE THIS 
COUNTRY IS GOING TO GO DOWN THE TUBES.
    SO GET OUT THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO RUN EVERYONES BUSINESS. 
START TO FIX THE HIGHWAYS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND GET OUT OF THE 
BUSINESS WORLD BUSINESS.



MTC-00008365

From: Gary Herbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Further litigation by either the Justice Dept. or by the states 
is like a dog chasing cars. There is nothing to be gained! The 
settlement is fair to all parties. The competitors have had their 
day in court and now it's time to move on.
    The consumer is having it's say by continuing to purchase 
Microsoft products.
    Gary Herbert
    [email protected]



MTC-00008366

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:51pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Enough hassle has been given to Microsoft. The ruling was fair 
and for all concerned this legal nonsense should cease.
    Jane Ross



MTC-00008367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Department of Justice:
    Please let Microsoft get on with their company business. Enough 
is enough. I feel all of us need to get on with the business of this 
country. I am hopeful that Microsoft and others may develop systems 
to help us ferret out the evil people who are trying to kill us and 
destroy our country. They can't do this while fighting for their 
very being, let alone the cost of lawsuits. I hope you will do 
whatever is necessary to encourage the states still trying for more 
punishment to cease actions.
    God Bless America. She needs everyone to join the fight and not 
be fighting each other. Thank you.
    Janet Munson
    Corpus Christi, TX



MTC-00008368

From: Joseph McCallion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepeople,
    I HOPE IN THE INTEREST OF ALL CONCERNED THAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE 
WILL BE PUT TO REST. I FEEL THAT THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF THE 
VARIOUS STATES WHO WANT TO FURTHER THIS CASE SHOULD BE REPRIMANDED. 
IT IS TIME TO END THIS TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AND MOVE ON. MICROSOFT 
HAS BEEN AN INNOVATIVE COMPANY AND SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR ITS 
SUCCESS. I OWN A SMALL AMOUNT OF MICROSOFT STOCK AND HAVE BEEN HURT 
BY THIS SUIT BECAUSE THIS ACTION HAS DRIVEN DOWN THE PRICE OF THE 
STOCK. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
    SINCERELY,
    JOSEPH McCALLION



MTC-00008369

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I support the Microsoft Settlement with the Federal Government. 
This costly litigation should end with this fair settlement. The 
cost is to the America People as well as to Microsoft.
    Sincerely yours,
    Jonathan M. Murdoch-Kitt
    3217 Chamberlayne Avenue
    Richmond, Virginia 23227-4806



MTC-00008370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:57pm
Subject: DOJ:
    DOJ:
    Why aren't these State attorney generals at the airport?? These 
are the real criminals. If you want to take on a monopoly, take on 
OPEC.
    C> Kapikian



MTC-00008371

From: Jeane Harkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this now the way it has been proposed. The current 
proposal seems very fair to all parties concerned. At this time we 
should be concerned with other problems on the home front not this 
one.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Jeane



MTC-00008372

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:

[[Page 25016]]

    Free enterprise was attacked by the Clinton Democrats when they 
filed charges against Microsoft. A company that has done more to 
encourage the economy than any other organization in our lifetime.
    If there had to be a settlement, giving to schools, equipment 
needed to advance the knowledge of young folks, is terrific. Mr. 
Gates is truly a giver and this just adds to his consideration of 
others.
    Denny DeVries



MTC-00008373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I'm totally IN FAVOR of Mr. Gates & Microsoft & its innovative & 
creative products to help better our lives. LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE to 
use its time to continue to do this.
    Please do not waste their time in court in the name of 
``justice'' ... it is NOT justice to stifle the minds of brilliant 
people working for a brilliant company producing goods which we all 
buy to enhance our endeavors. This IS a free Country ... so let them 
be free to continue to innovate.
    Thanks,
    Kata Patton



MTC-00008374

From: MARK JADEED
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:03pm
Subject: microsofy
    To whom it may concern, We feel that the current settlement 
between Microsoft and DOJ is fair. We hope that this would end the 
dispute and would give a chance for our high tech economy to recover 
and lead the world the way it was before litigation.
    sincerely,
    mark jadeed



MTC-00008375

From: Janet Tashima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:05pm
Subject: msft settlement
    I live in silicon valley. I feel a lot of the companies who have 
made this action against microsoft have just had inferior technology 
and they want to use their political position to have the government 
help them be competitive. I do not think that is the role of 
government. The companies that have the best tech will win, and that 
is the best thing for customers in the long run.
    I also own a lot of other tech stocks and I feel that the 
justice dept action against Microsoft started the downturn in the 
tech econ and the stock market. All one has to do is view the charts 
of the tech stocks. I think companies such as Oracle and Sun are so 
blinded by their jealousy of Gates, that they are willing to let the 
whole tech econ suffer. They seem to not even care if their own 
companies have taken a major hit. I guess why should they care, they 
are not just a worker in their company and they are billionaires 
even if the stock takes a tumble. They do not want to acknowledge 
that a multi million dollar action against one tech company is 
harmful to tech in general. It is time to move on and get rid of the 
excesses of the past administration.
    Yours,
    Janet Tashima 408-243-8424



MTC-00008376

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen grateful for innovative and useful products 
bringing tax revenue at home and abroad, I hope the settlement 
tentatively arrived at regarding Microsoft will be upheld and the 
matter finally brought to conclusion so that the time, energy and 
resources of Microsoft AND the government can b e more usefully 
employed.
    There are competitive forces working in the economy and the time 
has come for them to be the determinants.
    Very truly yours,
    Lydia T. Pfund
    Highland Beach, Florida



MTC-00008377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:05pm
Subject: Mircrosoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I urge that steps be taken to ensure that the negotiated 
settlement with Microsoft proceed to conclusion without undue delay. 
The settlement is the best resolution of the litigation and any 
steps to derail the settlement should be strongly resisted.
    Neil and Debbie Morgan



MTC-00008378

From: Carole Joy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:38pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    I am 100% in favor of microsoft being able to make and keep 
control of their own products. I think Microsoft invented it and 
should make the profit for it and be able to retain it as their own 
product. .... Other companies can make their own products.
    Carole Joy



MTC-00008379

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I AM 100% BEHIND THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT AND WANT THE 
GOVERNMENT TO PASS THE LAW AND STOP HARASSING A COMPANY THAT IS THE 
VERY BEST AT WHAT IT DOES!
    EUGENE T. YOUNG
    23 CHAPEL HILL DRIVE
    ROCHESTER, NY 14617



MTC-00008380

From: Heidar E-Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  5:58pm
Subject: microsoft litigation
    Dear Sirs.
    I would like to register my opinion and frustration that there 
continues to be delays in reaching a full settlement in the 
Microsoft case. It is long overdue that we put this matter behind us 
and move on.
    Continuous harassment of this company only serves to impede its 
progress in giving us better technology and this acts as a drag on 
the U.S. economy. So, settle and move on. We have better things to 
do than this.
    Helgi Heidar



MTC-00008381

From: Keith Steensma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    I am a shareholder of both Microsoft and Compaq stock. And as 
such, I should be very interested in seeing Microsoft operate (and 
make profits) un-hindered by any barriers. The fact is the what is 
good for Microsoft (and the other companies, like Compaq, that rely 
on Microsoft) is good for the nation.
    The is definitely not how I feel. I was a small businessman 
during the late 1980's and all of 1990's and felt the impact that 
(the infamous) WalMart had in our community. What was good for 
WalMart was not good for me. Eventually, we closed the store because 
we couldn't compete. My business was impacted by WalMart, but it was 
also impacted by the actions of Microsoft. Our business had 
supported Atari, Netscape, and IBM, and depended on the 
`alternatives' that these companies offered. Needless to say, as 
these companies failed in there quest to be an alternative, our 
business suffered. I believe that Microsoft has acted improperly. I 
have read all of the documents (concerning this case) that have bee 
released by the courts. I was stunned to read some of the actions 
that were taken (by Microsoft) to `make sure' a certain company or 
product failed. I believe that Microsoft needs to change the way 
they do business. And I don't believe that this will happen unless 
the company is severely sanctioned and regulated. I believe that the 
agreement that the government has reached with Microsoft is a joke 
and is an insult to my belief in my government. Please look at all 
the aspects of this case and arrive at a more `real' settlement of 
this case.
    Keith Steensma
    Jacksonville, Arkansas



MTC-00008382

From: warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. I am writing to express my displeasure at the proposed 
``settlement'' between the Dept of Justice and Microsoft. Not only 
does it NOT halt the illegal, anti-trust activities of Microsoft, 
but in some cases actually promotes Microsoft (ie. allowing them to 
flood the schools with free software).
    Hopefully the unfairness of this proposed settlement will be 
recognized and dealt with accordingly by the courts.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express my point of view.
    --Warren Friedman
    Fairfax, California



MTC-00008383

From: miburt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25017]]

    Get off of Microsoft's back. You have already spent too much of 
the taxpayer's money in trying a bum cause. Quit wasting our money 
and let Microsoft continue to give us better products for less money 
as they have in the past. Find some more important things to do.
    Doris & Burt Shearer



MTC-00008384

From: Michael E. Warren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is reasonable and that 
continued litigation serves no purpose except to increase legal fees 
and burnish the reputation of political office seekers.
    Indeed, although Microsoft may effectively have a monopoly on 
certain software products, they have gained this by producing 
quality products at a reasonable price to the great benefit of the 
general public. I have made it a point to use the software of many 
competing companies before migrating to Microsoft products, and 
unfortunately found them to be lacking in effectiveness.
    Microsoft has succeeded largely because they built a better 
mouse. I hate to see competition stifled, but I also hate to see the 
government stifle innovation.
    Where were all the DoJ lawyers when Kenneth Lay and his team 
were taking the public on a very expensive ride with Enron? Maybe if 
Bill Gates and company had been as effusive with political donations 
as they have been with charitable donations, Microsoft might not 
have had to face this purgatory.
    Mike Warren
    Gainesville, FL



MTC-00008385

From: Joanie Garborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between 
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that 
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long 
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
    Joanie Garborg



MTC-00008386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I strongly believe the settlement against Micrsoft recently is 
just and fair. Let all accept it and get on with our lives
    Mr.I.E.Park
    2417 Vining St.
    Bellingham, Wa.98226
    360-734-1589



MTC-00008387

From: Eric Lanser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The anti-trust laws are of dubious constitutionality. They are 
more a-kin to a ``government of men'' than to the stated American 
ideal of a ``government of laws.'' They do NOT treat all equally 
before the law (i.e. the successful). Finally, the laws violate the 
rights of the successful in favor of any mistaken and short-sighted 
voice of the ``consumer interest.'' The anti-trust laws' dubious 
constitutionality is one of the primary reasons why they ultimately 
hurt consumers more than help them.
    Ignoring the question of the rights to dispose of one's property 
in any way one wishes, another issue is at stake as well. The very 
existence of Microsoft and would-be corporations like it is greatly 
hindered by the presence and enforcement of the anti-trust laws. If 
Bill Gates had not ever existed, the world today would literally be 
a very different place. I'm not speaking of any sort of ``It's a 
Wonderful Life'' scenario here, but one of even greater importance. 
One where a single man has affected billions of people in a greatly 
positive way. Bill Gates provided the world with a vastly more 
efficient and effective platform than any other in existence. 
American people, and American corporations responded by purchasing 
it in vast numbers. Without Windows, the computer age would have, at 
best, been delayed a number of years. Although alternative platforms 
do exist, nearly every major company in the United States (and the 
world) uses some version of Windows on its machines. An office-place 
without computers would seem a strange site today, but it would be 
much more common without Bill Gates' actions.
    Among the many successes of Windows is its integration of 
multiple applications smoothly and effectively. Incorporating 
Internet Explorer into windows served as a terrific convenience to 
purchasers of windows. It saved consumers not only the money to buy 
the program but also the shipping time of some alternative browser 
to their house, school, or business.
    The entire reason Microsoft is being victimized by the anti-
trust laws is because its business practices have been so 
successful, it products so vital, and its impact on America and the 
world so great. Microsoft should be held up as a model to emulate 
and Bill Gates as a hero and innovator of our times. By punishing 
the successful precisely because they have done what they have done 
in the most efficient, innovative, and profitable ways is beyond 
impractical; it is immoral.
    The direct implications of penalizing Microsoft would mean one 
of a number of things (or some combination thereof): a. Layoffs at 
Microsoft; b. Higher prices for Windows and other software; c. Fewer 
innovations in the software field. Any voice of the ``public'' or 
``consumer interest'' should not overlook the simple fact that a 
hefty fine on Microsoft will NOT come out of Bill
    Gates pockets (nor should it), but ultimately out of the pockets 
of the ``public'' or consumers themselves. Even if no fine is 
involved, losses in profit (not to mention the costs to Microsoft 
for defending itself at trial) will have the same affects on prices/
labor/innovation. In the long run, if Microsoft is penalized for its 
successful business practices, it will forever be an example to 
future would-be innovators. Without Bill Gates and his would-be 
equals, no stimulus package in the world would be able to propel 
this economy or any other at the rate it has been growing since the 
early nineties. Without innovation in the computer field, or any 
other, the standard of living of the United States would stagnate, 
productivity would cease to rise, and every human being in the 
United States would suffer the consequences--from the highest paid 
CEO (who would see his portfolio crumble and his own business 
stagnate) to every factory worker (who would cease to have increases 
in pay do to rises in productivity).
    Most of all the consumers would suffer. They would have far 
fewer quality products coming to market. The new products that 
would, against all odds, come to market would be at higher prices 
and/or of lower quality than they would otherwise be. Once again, I 
urge any speaker for ``the public good'' or the ``consumer 
interest'' to take a look at the ultimate (and even immediate) 
consequences of penalizing the successful for doing exactly what 
they do best, providing the public with innovations, improvements, 
and quality products at low prices. The whole spirit of the United 
States was that of a nation in which great minds and average minds 
alike could live and think as they pleased--a symbol to the world of 
what the human mind and human self-interest could do for man and the 
world if he were left free.



MTC-00008388

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge the court to accept the settlement reached between 
Microsoft, the federal government and nine states. I believe that 
the settlement is just and fair. This case has dragged on too long 
already and this is the best way to resolve it.
    Keith Garborg



MTC-00008389

From: Patricia Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that the case against Microsoft has gone on long 
enough and that it would in the nation's best interest to finalize 
the settlement. With everything that is going on in the world, why 
don't we free up the bright minds of our country to focus on 
improving all of our lives as I feel Microsoft has done and 
continues to do. If the competitors of Microsoft spent as much time 
and money on their ideas and products as they are spending on this 
long, drawn-out litigation, they would probably be more successful 
in the business world.
    Pat Andrews
    145 Scottsdale Square
    Winter Park, FL 32792
    Phone: 407-718-5184
    Fax: 407-644-9951
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00008390

From: Judy Tallman
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25018]]

Date: 1/3/02  6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks,
    I strongly believe that the proposed settlement is fair and just 
to all parties. I highly recommend that the settlement be approved. 
It is time for us to allow Microsoft get back to the business of 
developing software. The first judge could not have been computer 
literate or he would not have made some of the comments if what was 
printed was indeed what was stated. For anyone like myself who has 
been using computers since mainframes and 300 baud modems were state 
of the art, many of the charges against MS are totally ridiculous.
    I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Gates both in his business 
practices and in his personal life. I checked the charities that MS 
support and they are very thoughtful and oriented towards helping 
children and schools especially. To me, this whole fuss seems to be 
all about lawyers trying to get more MS money for themselves.
    Let's please let MS supply the kids with computers and get on 
with business.
    Happy Trails,
    Judy Tallman
    Dancing Horses, Inc.
    www.dancinghorses.com



MTC-00008391

From: Bryan DeBois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: Please allow Microsoft to settle with 
the United States!! This judicial farce has gone on long enough, and 
wasted far too much of the tax-payers' money. It is high time that 
the Department of Justice give a vote of confidence for the 
consumers and their ability to think for themselves, instead of 
allowing large Microsoft competitors to whisper in justices' ears. 
We are on the brink of a new year, under a new administration, it is 
time to let it go.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan DeBois
    [email protected]
    Senior, Computer Science Major
    The University of Akron



MTC-00008392

From: Melvin Henderson-Rubio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the record, I need to state that I am a long-term Microsoft 
employee (over 15 yrs). Obviously, I have been aware of the current 
case filed by the DOJ and number of states as well as the settlement 
reached with DOJ and several states.
    It goes without saying that I have never fully grasped the 
justification for the case nor similar cases filed earlier along the 
same grounds. I am well aware that our competitors have been and 
will continue to use the legal system and public option to try and 
accomplish what they have failed to in the marketplace, develop and 
market some of the best software in the industry.
    As taxpayer, not only in my residing state of Washington (which 
I'm glad to see our Attorney General opted not to join in on the 
case) and as a US tax payer, I fail to understand what the DOJ and 
states see as the benefit to consumers and the use tax dollars to 
fund such investigation, beyond a reasonable review. What did and 
what do these states really think they are doing to assist their 
citizens? As a consumer, if I do not want Microsoft products pre-
installed on my system, I can remove them and replace with other 
products. Similar to what happens when I purchase a car. If I do not 
like the radio I pay purchase one after market and the same goes for 
wheels or tries. There is a huge after-market for these items. 
Similarly there are options in the high-tech industry, but the vast 
majority of consumers are okay with an ``industry standard.'' 
Currently it's Microsoft, in the early days of the pc, it was Apple, 
and someday it will be someone else. If you look at history, first 
it was the Chinese, Greeks and Egyptians, then French, Dutch, 
Spanish and British who ruled the world. In recent times, the 
Russians and now the US. History takes care of things.
    As a consumer and watching the growth of the pc industry for 
more than 15 years, Microsoft along with industry partners such as: 
Intel and major pc companies (including Apple to some degree) have 
done more to stimulate the pc industry and economy overall than any 
other sequence of innovations in US or for that matter, contemporary 
world economy. I equate that Microsoft (along with Intel) has done 
for the pc and high tech industry what McDonald's has and continues 
to do for the ``fast-food'' industry; Disney for the concept of 
amusements and family entrainment; Starbucks for the coffee industry 
and CNN for 24 Hour News.
    Yes, Microsoft has been extremely aggressive when it comes to 
getting it's product into the marketplace, but not any more than a 
sports franchise looking to win the Super Bowl or NBA Title. Just 
image had the DOJ and states outside of Illinois and/or Texas and 
California opted to oppose the Bulls, Cowboys or 49'ers from winning 
as many world titles as they have.
    It should not be the role of the government to pick and choose 
winners and losers, nor overly support the lobbying efforts by 
competitors to try and level the marketplace. Over the years 
Microsoft has seen numerous opportunities and markets to pursue and 
set clear-cut objectives to enter those markets. I do not recall 
Microsoft asking the DOJ or various states Attorney Generals to keep 
displace or slow-down the efforts of: Lotus (1-2-3) or Word-Perfect 
or other industry leaders. Microsoft has not always been successful, 
there was Microsoft Bob and the failed merge with Quicken. Numerous 
current Microsoft and industry standards took several attempts, such 
as: MS-DOS; Microsoft Windows to become industry standards; the 
Microsoft Mouse was major undertaking and the Microsoft Office Suite 
took years to become the standard.
    As a consumer, I can go into any store and with Microsoft 
Windows being the world-wide standard; I have 10's of thousands of 
applications, games and accessorories to choose from. Prior to 
Microsoft becoming the standard (pre-Ms-DOS days), there were no 
where near the selection. Each app or game had a few choices, 
because developers and distributors did not know or what to risk 
developing and distributing for an operating system that might not 
be well received. Microsoft has without a doubt created and huge 
high-tech industry (again, long with key partners such as Intel) and 
stimulated the US economy more than any other company in US history.
    It is somewhat ironic that a number, if not most of our 
competitors usually solely develop and support their applications to 
the Microsoft Windows standard. The vast majority of their 
developers use the Microsoft Windows standard, so do their techs 
support folks and sales and marketing forces. Without such a 
dominate operating system, our competitors would have to decided and 
divide their resources into 2-3 different focus areas. The same 
applies and more so related to the development of independent 
applications and services.
    Not agreeing in the first place the lawsuit has merit, I am in 
agreement with the proposed settlement. Students and teachers, 
especially in lower-income areas will need to make sure they are 
prepared and able to compete in the marketplace as well as various 
careers. For the foreseeable future, Microsoft products and services 
will remain the world-wide industry standard (that is not to say 
that some other company will not displace Microsoft).
    CC:Melvin Henderson-Rubio



MTC-00008393

From: Johnson, Daniel 1.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I recommend that the Court require in its remedy, in addition to 
the stipulations already provided (located at http://www.usdoj.gov/
atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9500/
9549.htm), that: Microsoft be required to include compliance with 
relevant industry-standard, publicly available interconnectivity 
protocols and file formats in all software products, and provide 
these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid Microsoft from 
offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but to foster 
competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly available 
all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized formats and 
protocols so that competitors can ensure interconnectivity.
    Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and 
software with these standards. Microsoft must not ``extend'' any 
independent formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft 
be not permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices 
misrepresenting the strengths of MS software and OS's and the 
weakness of competitors'.
    Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to be 
dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is 
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to 
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years. 
Microsoft should be required, for a period of several years, to seek 
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and 
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.

[[Page 25019]]

    I understand that these may seem to be too broad; it is not, for 
all ``connectivity technology is ``middleware.'' Details and 
rationale for why this action is appropriate to this case follow 
below. This recommendation is essentially an enhancement of Section 
III. E.
    Respondent:
    Daniel L. Johnson, MD
    Red Cedar Clinic, Ltd.
    Mayo Health System
    Menomonie, WI 54751
    [email protected]
    Respondent's background:
    Profession: general internal medicine since 1978 Experience 
relative to this case: I've been a user of microcomputers since 
1980; an ``occasional'' amateur software developer of word 
processing software 1982-1988; I have monitored the microcomputer 
and medical software arenas, as a consumer and an interested 
spectator, since 1983. I have experience with Apple computers and 
IBM PC's, and have used all versions of MS-DOS or PC-DOS through PC-
DOS 7.0, Windows 3.10 through Windows XP, and Linux OS from Red Hat 
5.0 through 7.2 (the current version). I am a knowledgeable non-
professional with no vocational stake in software or operating 
systems.
    Limitations:
    I do not have the time to document the factual basis for the 
observations and conclusions I offer below, due to the demanding 
time constraints of my job as a physician and due to other personal 
commitments. I regret this, and would simply point out that this 
factual basis has been well documented within industry publications 
(often indirectly, however) and on the internet. None of my 
judgments are based on private information except perhaps some of my 
knowledge about excess costs to the health care industry due to the 
effects of Microsoft's monopoly on desktop operating systems and 
software.
    Reason for responding:
    I am concerned about the continued non-competitive situation in 
the microcomputer software industry because I have observed that 
Microsoft has used its market and public relations power 
destructively: to stifle competitive innovation, to indirectly 
hinder production and sales of needed custom-built software, to 
destroy, in several ways, many small companies whose expertise and 
software tools have not been replaced; the result has been to place 
inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses generally.
    It places inefficiency burdens on consumer businesses in two 
ways: First, the severe security flaws in Windows operating systems 
and Microsoft's Outlook and Word software (which also have monopoly 
strength in the their markets) have slowed operation of the 
Internet, cause repeated system crashes that harm companies' 
businesses, and expose confidential personal data via software 
cracking.
    Second, Microsoft is using its monopoly position to raise 
license fees and restrict license terms in ways that create harmful 
fiscal burdens on companies dependent on their OS and applications, 
burdens that would not exist if there were actually competition. 
This is creating financial inefficiency in the business sector 
generally, and in health care in particular--because we are finding 
that software vendors, whose software has run well on non Microsoft 
platforms, are wholesale porting this software to Windows out of 
fear of being left outside the monopoly, resulting in uncontrollable 
increases in license fees and in hardware costs to users. It is 
useful to contrast Microsoft's use of its monopoly markets and 
Intel's. Intel also enjoys monopoly power, but it has not been able 
prevent competition: first Cyrix and now AMID have been able to 
provide satisfactory alternatives to Intel (although some would 
argue that Intel as done its best to destroy both competitors, with 
significant although incomplete success).
    The COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT says: ``On May 18, 1998, the 
United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint alleging that 
Microsoft Corporation (``Microsoft''), the world's largest supplier 
of computer software for personal computers, restrained competition 
in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 1-
2..... The United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia, which found that Microsoft violated both Sections 1 and 2 
of the Sherman Act .... The Proposed Final Judgment will 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.'' 
I am convinced, based on my extended observation of the computer 
industry in this country, that the proposed Final Judgment will NOT 
provide a remedy that is effective, certain or prompt in restoring 
competition to the markets in which Microsoft has a monopoly 
position because it does not adequately take into account the 
manifold and pervasive means that have been used by Microsoft to 
achieve and maintain its monopoly position.
    Rationale:
    First, the remedies only address middleware (because the 
Complaint addresses middleware). Unfortunately for prospect of a 
remedy that is either ``certain'' or ``effective'' in restoring 
competition to the desktop computer industry, middleware is only a 
small though important factor. It will not be possible to restore 
competition by addressing middleware alone. Microsoft has 
successfully created for itself monopoly positions in operating 
systems for pc's email programs word processing programs spreadsheet 
programs browsers (``middleware'') other less ``significant'' market 
areas By ``monopoly position'' I mean that potential competitors can 
survive only by offering software that mimics the operations and 
functionality of Microsoft software; Microsoft continually changes 
their software's specifications and file formats to prevent this, 
and to make their own earlier versions incompatible with files 
created by new versions, forcing users to abandon the software both 
of competitors and of Microsoft in order to be able to interchange 
documents efficiently.
    Microsoft does not have monopoly positions in server operating 
systems database software programming languages mail service 
internet protocols file/directory management customized software 
This does not obviate Microsoft's monopoly position in all the other 
software areas that it already dominates.
    Microsoft understands that the most important key to complete 
dominance of the software industry is by controlling 
``connectivity''--sharing of documents, images, email, data, and 
directories. I will not expand this response with details; I will 
simply say that Microsoft is attempting to gain control of every 
area that it does not now dominate; the only area that seems 
relatively safe from monopolistic control right now is large 
databases. In every other area Microsoft has in place either 
technological programs or marketing programs that have some 
reasonable likelihood of controlling markets or technology or both.
    As I have observed the evolution of the desktop-computer market 
during the last 21 years, it has been rare for Microsoft to gain 
competitive advantage by itself producing a functionally or 
technically superior product. MS-DOS was a badly designed operating 
system that happened to enjoy the imprimatur of IBM and the 
advantage of open computer architecture. Microsoft purchased the 
leading email software vendor; it waited for the word processing 
market to mature, then imitated the best of what was available from 
multiple competitors, and made Word the ``best'' by preventing 
competitors from learning how to make their own software work well 
with upcoming versions of Microsoft operating systems until 
Microsoft had completed its own work on Word, guaranteeing that the 
competition would always be ``behind'' on the dominant OS. It did 
the same thing with Excel, its spreadsheet program.
    It was not able to do this with Netscape, and so it behaved in a 
variety of destructive ways that are well documented in the trial 
proceedings. In general, I can identify four ways in which Microsoft 
has stifled competition: by purchasing its competition by inviting 
its competition to consider being purchased, examining their 
software technically, and then duplicating their software 
engineering while abandoning the proposed acquisition on one or 
another technicality. through a consistent pattern, since about 
1990, of false and misleading advertising that inflates falsely the 
strengths of Microsoft software and denying its faults or 
limitations while falsely slandering the strengths of competitive 
versions and emphasizing their faults and limitations. By claiming 
to adopt industry standards when offering software for which 
``connectivity'' is important, but actually departing from those 
standards in the implementation, meaning that the output of these 
programs is not actually ``portable'' or exchangeable. (By 
``actually'' I mean that it is not feasible within pragmatic 
limitations of time, effort, and money, not that it is conceptually 
impossible.)
    I may be argued that these actions of Microsoft have not always 
been successful, but these instances of failure do not imply that 
Microsoft has failed to leverage their

[[Page 25020]]

monopoly position; moreover, it has attempted to do so in every 
conceivable way. The effects of this monopoly, as I've noted above, 
are financial inefficiency and operational inefficiency. Microsoft 
is now using its monopoly position to squeeze its business licensees 
(users) financially by raising license fees, requiring software 
upgrades, limiting user rights and otherwise restricting licenses.
    In general, it is true that Microsoft operating systems, in 
comparison to other operating systems (Unix versions, Linux, 0S/2, 
Macintosh, BeOS) are more prone to crashes, are more susceptible to 
security breakdowns and breaches, and do not run as efficiently on 
hardware (computers), entailing financial inefficiency for users who 
must purchase additional servers and spend more money on energy. My 
understanding is that in general, Microsoft operating systems 
require about twice the expenditure for electricity and for 
computers as alternatives. In addition, software vendors are 
burdened with the inefficiency of having to convert software to 
Windows because of the real threat to their businesses from not 
having Windows versions.
    Microsoft will argue that to restrain its practices is to stifle 
technological improvement. It will point to specific instances in 
which its software performs better than other choices. But the 
existence of such specific instances of superiority does not imply 
that its software is generally superior in performance or in design; 
furthermore, even if this were true, Microsoft's practices 
effectively destroy competition and enhance its monopoly powers; 
this defect is more important to efficient commerce than the 
relatively small technical superiorities it points to. Restoration 
of competition.
    In my judgment it will not be possible, by any fiat a court is 
capable of issuing, to ``promptly'' restore competition to the 
market, as the Competitive Impact Statement proposes. At most, the 
court may be able to hinder Microsoft's destructive practices 
sufficiently to permit genuine competition to emerge by establishing 
a competitive environment. Because the future of computing lies in 
interconnectivity of machines and exchange of data and 
communications, the only way to free our commercial society from 
monopolistic domination by Microsoft or any similar entity is to 
mandate that in all its operating systems and software applications, 
Microsoft supply, as defaults, file formats, directory handling, 
encryption methods, data-handling protocols, and other technology 
important in interconnectivity that are publicly available and 
conform to consensus industry standards.
    Conclusion (reprise): Thus I am recommending that the court 
require, in its remedy, that: Microsoft be required to include 
compliance with relevant industry-standard, publicly available 
interconnectivity protocols and file formats with all software, and 
provide these as the installed defaults. This does not forbid 
Microsoft from offering enhanced protocols as well, as options, but 
to foster competition, Microsoft must be required to make publicly 
available all technical details of ``enhanced'' or customized 
formats and protocols so that competitors can ensure 
interconnectivity.
    Microsoft be required to demonstrate compatibility of OS and 
software with these standards.
    Microsoft be not permitted to ``extend'' any independent 
formats, protocols or standards unilaterally. Microsoft be not 
permitted to engage in deceptive marketing practices misrepresenting 
the strengths of MS software and OS's and the weakness of 
competitors' Industry groups exist for many standards; these tend to 
be dominated by leading vendors. With regard to this Action, it is 
important that Microsoft and its client firms not be permitted to 
dominate standards groups' membership for a period of years. 
Microsoft be required, for a period of several years, to seek 
extensions of these standards only as part of industry consortia and 
that it and its client firms are forbidden dominate numerically.



MTC-00008394

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:20pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As a consumer please note that i agree that a settlement in the 
Microsoft case is good for both the consumer, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Please get on with it.
    Thank you
    Meredith St Pierre
    Boca Raton, Fl



MTC-00008396

From: Billie R Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:27pm
Subject:
    It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to waste 
the money It is beyond my understanding why the government wants to 
waste the money of the tax payer to try to destroy Microsoft through 
senseless litigation when Microsoft has done so much for the economy 
of the United States by creating jobs.
    Billie Cox



MTC-00008397

From: Stefan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:29pm
Subject: Thoughts on MS settlement
    Dear sir or madam:
    I am a U.S. Citizen, a long-time computer user and am appalled 
by the Department of Justice1s proposal to give Microsoft a monopoly 
in education by allowing them to donate Windows-based computers, the 
bane of computing, to poorly-funded schools in the country. This 
proposal is a shame and travesty of justice. Microsoft has acted 
illegally time and again, thus, it clearly is not just nor in the 
public1s best interest to reward their illegal and predatory 
behavior with such a largess. While I am not an Apple Computer stock 
holder, I favor the counter proposal submitted to the Department of 
Justice by Apple's CEO Mr. Steven Jobs.
    Sincerely,
    Stefan Ingannamorte
    Apopka, FL



MTC-00008398

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that I believe that the settlement agreed to 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft is fair and 
reasonable to the consumer and is in the public interest.
    It is time for everyone involved to get on with being concerned 
about innovation, creativity, and doing constructive things to help 
stimulate the economy. It is necessary for this matter to be 
resolved for the benefit of the consumer, Microsoft's stockholders, 
and for all the companies that do business with Microsoft Needless 
to say, I encourage the Court to approve the settlement agreed to 
between Microsoft, the nine states, and the Department of Justice.
    Jerome N. Weinberg



MTC-00008399

From: Max Burford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    It's my feeling that the Microsoft case ruling by the court of 
appeals should be final.
    Quite dragging it out.
    Max O. Burford
    [email protected]



MTC-00008400

From: Geo and Steven Mayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The government should have stayed out of this in the first 
place. Microsoft should be able to do business without being 
manacled by the government.
    George Mayes
    [email protected]



MTC-00008401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed government settlement with 
Microsoft which I think is fair to all concerned. Microsoft is a 
significant investment in my personal retirement fund which I will 
need to supplement social security when I retire in
    March, 2003.
    Rees Himes
    31 Sylvan Road North
    Westport, CT 06880



MTC-00008402

From: Steve (038) Pam Lock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies/Gentlemen:
    We are extremely hopeful and pleased that the Microsoft case may 
finally be settled. We feel very strongly that it is in the best 
interest of both the economy and the country--especially in light of 
recent events--that this settlement proceed to completion.
    In this critical time we feel the DOJ should turn its attention 
and spend its taxpayer funds on the security of this country. We 
feel

[[Page 25021]]

spending any more of tax payers money or DOJ time and energy on this 
case would not bring any further benefit to us the consumer or to 
our country.
    Thank you for your time in reading this and we continue to be 
hopeful that this matter will finally come to a close.
    Sincerely,
    Steven and Pamela Lock
    1580 SE Pioneer Way
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277



MTC-00008403

From: Ying, Xingren
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case! U.S. economy and HiTech cannot afford 
this endless lawsuit. Let's compete in the market not in the court. 
Even Microsoft competitors can kill MS in the court. But the 
consumer will be the loser also. We will pay the higher price to buy 
the software and the leadership of software industry will transfer 
to other country.
    So, please settle. We just want Microsoft behave better, not to 
kill it.
    Xingren



MTC-00008404

From: Chance Yohman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is it unjust for a company to share a large sector of a market? 
This is one of the questions before the United States Department of 
Justice right now concerning Microsoft and the software market. If 
Microsoft does a good job at what it does, then undoubtedly it will 
gain a large share of the market just like it has. Its time to end 
this attack fueled by petty jealousies of other software competitors 
and our federal government's fear of letting individuals do their 
own business. Let Microsoft be and let the market dictate who comes 
out on top. One of the many citizens who this country belongs to 
rightfully,
    Chance E. Yohman
    East Waterboro, Maine
    THE GEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH



MTC-00008405

From: james k davies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To all those concerned:
    It is my hope that the settlement, which has been reached in the 
issue of the Department of Justice (and some state suits) and 
Microsoft, will be found by the District Court to be fair, complete 
and comprehensive. From my perspective, that of a consumer who is 
dependent on the trouble free, low maintenance, smooth cross-
application performance of my operating system (Windows) for a 
business software function free of problems, it is not realistic to 
deny Windows users this settlement and move on in the world of 
software development and innovation. Please do not be put off by my 
use of the word ``innovation.'' It is the most descriptive and 
exciting word in the world of technological development.
    I am weary of the denial of the existence of other software 
operating systems, systems which have developed contemporaneously 
with Windows, with varying levels of success--DOS (which IBM decided 
they didn't want), IBM's OS2 (a dreadful, cumbersome, and generally 
non-performing system), Apple's MacIntosh (priced out of my market--
by Apple, not Microsoft), Unix (too expensive and too technical as 
it was developed for the scientific and engineering markets of which 
most of us are not members) and Linux (until very recently not 
performing in the cross-application market (through no fault of 
Microsoft's) most users require and still not 'up to snuff' for this 
user.
    Until there is something better than Microsoft's Windows--and 
it's browser--I suggest we stop punishing Microsoft for being the 
best.
    Elizabeth B. Davies



MTC-00008406

From: DwightNancy James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    We want you to complete the Microsoft Settlement. The agreement 
is too stringent in our view, but the US Govt has spent entirely too 
much time and money on this inquisition already. There are many more 
pressing matters needing our tax dollars. Please do not allow the 
opponents of the settlement drag this out any longer.
    We have always felt that Microsoft has served our needs properly 
and have never felt used or abused.
    Thank you.
    Dwight and Nancy James
    10124 Sharon Spring Dr
    Fredericksburg, VA 22408
    (540) 371-4625
    cc: Congressman Frank Wolf
    Senators John Warner and George Allen



MTC-00008407

From: Chris Aveni
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is of my opinion, and many other Americans of sound mind that 
Microsoft has suffered ridiculous penalties as a result of over 
zealous attorneys and sour competitors. Please name me one other 
company in this country that exports as much as Microsoft in which 
keeps our trade deficit from soaring. Without Microsoft in our 
economy, we would not only have a much more devastating trade 
deficit, but an economy that would be much worse off than it is 
today. Also keep in mind that Microsoft has brought technology allot 
further than any other company has over the years. Microsoft did try 
to stifle competition, and they should be prevented from doing so in 
the future, but it is know time to get off their backs and all get 
back to business. The proposed settlement is overly far to the 
competition.
    Christopher J. Aveni
    Technical Analyst
    AremisSoft Corporation, Manufacturing Division
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Internet: http://www.aremissoft.com/



MTC-00008408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir--
    Just a quick note to let you hear my opinion on the subject 
settlement (Tunney Act). I would really like to see littigation 
ended immediately. I believe the settlement is fair as is and 
further fighting in the courts will do nothing for me as consumer 
and everything to further fatten the pockets of lawyers and a few 
wealthy plaintiffs. I do not wish to see my tax dollars wasted in 
further litigation against Microsoft and request that DOJ move to 
accept the settlement as it stands. Thank you.
    Chris Carbott
    11508 Boathouse CT
    Bowie, MD 20720
    301-805-6987



MTC-00008409

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and a stock owner, I am satisfied with the 
settlement which has been reached.



MTC-00008410

From: Larry Steinbecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to take this opportunity to speak forcefully in 
favor of Microsoft regarding the DOJ's legal actions against them. 
Unlike the monopoly previously held by AT & T, and currently held by 
the U.S. Post Office, Microsoft did not gain their dominant position 
by outlawing competitors; they outperformed them, thus *earning* a 
dominant position.
    I speak directly from experience as the owner of a computer 
software firm when I say that Microsoft has done this country a 
great service in delivering a single dominant operating system. 
Since my company only has to write software for a single 
environment, it is able to deliver higher quality products and offer 
lower prices than if it had to write software for numerous, 
incompatible environments. Our 2,000+ customers are the direct 
beneficiaries of this fact to the tune of tens if not hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. This same fact holds true for every producer 
of software that runs on Microsoft platforms, multiplied by each of 
their respective customer bases.
    Further, every one of Microsoft's customers, by having free 
access to a web browser, was measurably and positively impacted by 
the fact they did not have to spend an additional $30--$100 in order 
to browse the web. True, Netscape was hurt by this action, but the 
benefit to the country as a whole was immense. Every Microsoft 
customer saved $30 to $100 by not having to purchase a separate 
browser. Each of these millions of users were then able to save that

[[Page 25022]]

money, or use it to purchase other goods or services that they would 
not have otherwise bought.
    Remarkably, Microsoft has been painted as the ``bad guy'' for 
making business more difficult for their competitors. Never mind the 
fact that every action taken by every business in every field is 
done precisely to benefit their own company at the expense of their 
competitors. Every advertisement, feature, and service provided by a 
company negatively affects their competitors' ability to compete 
with them. And yet we are to believe that Microsoft is evil and 
conniving for not wishing to bestow bounty upon its competitors, nor 
make life easy for them.
    The DOJ's actions thus far have further cost the economy untold 
billions. It is not a coincidence that the stock market plunge began 
precisely on the day that the judgment was announced against 
Microsoft. Since that time, the stock market has lost nearly $1 
trillion in value as investors became worried that the tech sector, 
our most productive market segment, was going to come under 
persecution and micromanagement by U.S. Government. The DOJ's 
actions have not just eviscerated Microsoft's value, but the 
retirement and savings accounts of countless citizens who gladly 
owned Microsoft and other tech stocks.
    It should be obvious to anyone of even limited intellectual 
resources that Microsoft, while having a dominant position, can only 
do so if they continue to outperform their competitors. Microsoft 
has stumbled in particular areas, such as personal finance software, 
on-line services and even server operating systems. In every case 
the market has gone to their competitors (Quicken, American On-Line 
and Linux) quickly, efficiently, and without government 
intervention. This same migration will happen if Microsoft ceases to 
offer the best operating system at the best price.
    Microsoft's envious competitors are largely driving this case. 
They are seeking to gain in court that which they could not achieve 
in the marketplace. But it is time for the DOJ to stop acting as the 
special-interest arm of the government for these competitors; 
instead the DOJ should act in the interest of the countless citizens 
benefited directly and indirectly by use of Microsoft's products and 
ownership of Microsoft's stock. I strongly urge you to settle this 
case with the least possible damage to Microsoft, and to let 
America's most productive company alone in the future, to benefit of 
our country.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Steinbecker



MTC-00008411

From: James F. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is good for the consumer, the American 
economy and the public interest. I urge you to settle this case 
immediately and not let a few dissidents continue to block a 
reasonable settlement.
    Sincerely
    James F. Miller



MTC-00008412

From: Abe Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    We are in favor of the present settlement. We think continuing 
the ligitation should be stopped.
    Abe Shapiro



MTC-00008413

From: Robert Feeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05pm
Subject: Settlement Suit
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft Corporation like yourselves and and me are still 
evolving. This evolving in a harsh and competitive electronic 
universe has shown us the best and the worst of Microsoft. Still, I 
believe it is in our best interest to leave MSFT intact and not 
break up the company.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Feeney
    707-863-8898
    707-863-8899 fax
    707-491-0737 pager
    [email protected] .... [email protected]



MTC-00008414

From: Lonnie Malaska MIS CD(038)C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With respect to a document,
    re: ``Utah Attorney General is pursuing harsher punishment...''
    And, a following response,
    re:``The Judge in the Microsoft case ... will decide whether 
additional (or different) remedies are appropriate...''
    As an Systems Administrator working with microsoft products has 
been both, positive and negative. But, the Antitrust Case needs to 
be resolved. I have personally noted that Microsoft is taking over 
other software vendors ideas and thus their product, due to the 
`ownership of the only viable computer OS on the market to-day'.
    Other vendors can't possibly compete with such a giant, I think 
our
    Fore Fathers addressed this issue.
    Lonnie Malaska
    1795 E. South campus Dr.
    Salt Lake City, ut 84112Lonnie Malaska
    Campus Design
    University of Utah
    [email protected]
    ph: 801-581-3136
    fax: 581 6081



MTC-00008415

From: Warren Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a citizen, a Microsoft shareholder and a retired engineer of 
AT&T, I hope you can come to a positive solution for Microsoft in 
the ongoing litigation. I think that Microsoft has been the most 
progressive software provider, a leading worldwide organization. I 
feel that we will see great progress for the United States computer 
and communication fields that will surpass whatever we have seen up 
to now. Please keep Microsoft's software leadership intact.
    Warren L. Hoffman



MTC-00008416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I think Microsoft does have dirty hands in this affair, 
the settlement they have proposed seems fair to all parties 
concerned. It is in the interest of our economy to finalize this 
mess and get on with business. This is a very fast changing industry 
and their competitors who are spending so much to fight them would 
do better by putting their money where it could be used to innovate! 
There are still many open avenues to explore!
    Thank you for your time!
    Sally McQueen



MTC-00008417

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair & some of the States involved 
also agree, it seems foolish for States that don't want to settle to 
hold out. It's been a couple of years already-enough is enough!!!
    I think M/S did great things for the average Joe with home 
computers & really don't see how they forced anything on people that 
didn't want various programs.
    I am 79 yrs. old, always thought I was of average intelligence 
until I got a computer about 6 yrs. ago ( I never cursed or talked 
to myself before that ). I just wish I was 70 yrs. younger as my 
grand-kids (all under 18 ) really catch on compared to people my 
age.
    Thanks for letting me spout off.
    Fred Murrell
    K7RDN (HAM RADIO CALL)



MTC-00008419

From: Sid Ghosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, Justice Dept. lawsuit against ha very little 
merit. Microsoft indulged in the same business practice as any other 
reputable viable business enterprise would do. Just that Microsoft 
became successful- may be very successful.
    I think DOJ should reach a legal settlement with Microsoft and 
move ahead, without further punishing a very innovative US 
Corporation.
    Sid Ghosh



MTC-00008420

From: Auguste Schwab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Gentlemen/Mesdames.........
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is 
fair and should be approved.
    It is important to realize how much Microsoft has done for the 
technology sector not to mention what they have done for the average 
American citizen. Without them, we would be years behind and prices 
for hardware and software would be far higher than they are today. 
Microsoft has made us

[[Page 25023]]

the world leaders in the field. Everyone else had the opportunity--
but Microsoft did it. Were they aggressive? Yes, but it served us 
all well. A shrinking violet in this industry does not do us any 
good.
    A billion dollars worth of hardware and software for children 
would be a godsend and would provide them with knowledge they can 
put to good use in their adult years. It will help the economy and 
the reputation of the United States immensely in the long run.
    Do not be misled by special interest groups which object to this 
settlement for their own benefit.
    Sincerely,
    Auguste Schwab
    6281 Evian Place
    Boynton Beach FL 33437



MTC-00008421

From: (00B0)(FFFF)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen/Madam
    Let us not derail an already fragile economy. History does 
repeat itself as
    George Bush Sr. found out abruptly-ITS ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMY, 
stupid! See, I softened my stance at the end of the statement..Keep 
those middle class jobs fluorishing and good things will happen...
    Dave Mckay



MTC-00008422

From: Paul DeMar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement would be fair to all parties 
involved. Its time to settle the case and move on.
    Sincerely
    Paul DeMar



MTC-00008423

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:14pm
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.



MTC-00008424

From: Joe Doyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:18pm
Subject: Settlement
    I am all for the Microsoft settlement.
    Joseph J. Doyle



MTC-00008425

From: LELAND ERICKSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Just settle this case now as is-----don't waste any more time 
and money'



MTC-00008426

From: JAMES .F. OVERSTREET
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I THINK THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH MICROSOFT IS A FAIR 
SETTLEMENT AND IS CERTAINLY IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AND IS 
CERTAINLY IN MY INTEREST. WHILE I AM A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF 
CALIFORNIA THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES SPEAK FOR ME, BUT FOR 
SOME SPECIAL INTERESTS, WHICH ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING THE 
GOVERNMENT DO FOR THEM WHAT THE MARKET HAS NOT.
    ESPECIALLY IN THESE TROUBLED ECONOMIC TIMES IT IS TIME TO REMOVE 
THE SCHAKLES THAT HAVE SLOWED MICROSOFT DOWN. GET THIS THING SETTLED 
ALREADY!!!
    SINCERELY:
    JAMES F. OVERSTREET



MTC-00008427

From: Paul Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a concerned citizen, I would like to express my opinion that 
the settlement reached between the DOJ/9 States and Microsoft is 
fair and should be accepted.
    This entire Microsoft litigation is a terrible waste of 
taxpayers money. It should come to a end as soon a possible. There 
are a lot more pressing issues we have today.
    Thank you for accepting my opinion in this matter.
    Paul J. Allen
    17000 Red Bird Road
    Winter Garden, FL 34787
    407-656-0934
    [email protected]



MTC-00008428

From: Norman Martinusen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This matter should be settled promptly. The settlement others 
accepted was tough but fair to all concerned; and should be accepted 
by the other parties which have not yet settled.
    N.J. Martinusen



MTC-00008430

From: Daniel Bontz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to settle this issue and stop spending the 
tax payer's money. I am currently living in Florida and do not 
understand what Florida is not agreeing to the Government offer.
    I believe it the offer is a good offer and the matter should be 
settled now.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Daniel L. Bontz



MTC-00008431

From: John Moore
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment upon the proposed settlement between the 
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft. Since the company 
has been found both to be a monopoly and to be misusing the power 
inherent in that position, it would seem that any final result of 
the public's money and effort spent reaching this point should 
accomplish three things at a minimum: halting the illegal conduct of 
the company, promoting and restoring competition in the industry, 
and depriving the company of the gains it has accrued through its 
illegal conduct.
    The proposed settlement fails to accomplish any one of these 
three goals. In addition, the Court is aware that the original suit 
arises because of a difference of opinion regarding the effect of an 
earlier consent order. The wording of the proposed settlement 
appears vague to this software engineer. Even one unschooled in the 
law can spot huge holes which would permit Microsoft to evade the 
apparent intent of the document. From past behavior, this would 
likely lead to continued illegal activity. As an example, the 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to define the ``Windows 
Operating System.'' This means that it will be unfettered from 
employing the method of ``bundling'' additional functionality into 
the OS to attack future competition, just as it has attacked 
Netscape, Real Media, Apple Computers' QuickTime, and a near-endless 
list of others.
    There is no economic incentive for a software company to expend 
the research and development time necessary to create a new 
application if its functionality can be bundled into Microsoft's 
definition of the ``Windows Operating System.'' At the trial, 
Microsoft did not contest that it could define the operating system 
to include a ham sandwich if it desired. This is not appropriate and 
needs remedy.
    The government's proposed agreement does provide that Microsoft 
cannot penalize some manufacturers if they offer to sell the 
application of a competitor. Unfortunately, it does permit Microsoft 
to offer inducements to a manufacturer to exclude competitors' 
products. It seems that under the proposed settlement, it would be 
illegal for Microsoft to--as an example--sell Windows to a 
manufacturer for $30 per PC if it didn't use competing software, but 
charge $100 if the manufacturer included competitors' products. On 
the other hand, nothing in the proposed agreement would seem to stop 
Microsoft from charging everyone $100 for Windows, but offering a 
$70 inducement if no competitor's products were used by the 
manufacturer. To someone who is not a legal scholar, this appears to 
be the same thing. It would undoubtedly have the same result--and 
would not restore competition.
    A just settlement would not only prohibit penalties imposed by 
Microsoft to stop others' pro-competitive activities, but also 
prohibit it from offering any inducements which lead to the same 
result: exclusion of competition from other software companies. As a 
professional software engineer, I can assure you that no settlement 
will truly promote competition unless it fully addresses what are 
known in the field as Application Programming Interfaces (most 
frequently abbreviated ``API's''). In the past, Microsoft has used 
its control over operating system

[[Page 25024]]

API's to extend its monopoly. These APIs are not engraved in stone; 
they change. In the past, they have been deliberately changed by 
Microsoft to hamper other companies. Some of them were not even 
disclosed publicly until experts found that Microsoft applications 
were using ``secret'' OS calls to accomplish results that were 
otherwise impossible.
    Likewise, I see nothing in the proposed settlement which will 
limit Microsoft's typical philosophy of ``embrace and extend.'' This 
exercise of power, only possible to a monopoly, allows Microsoft to 
``embrace'' an open and publicly-defined internet protocol and 
``extend'' it--adding functionality that makes it work properly only 
with Windows clients. To allow for competition to exist, a 
Monopolist Microsoft should have to fully disclose all protocols and 
protocol changes to foster interoperability.
    The proposed settlement will accomplish nearly nothing with 
regard to API's and protocols. Full disclosure is not mandated, and 
Microsoft will see any vagueness in a light that serves the 
company's interest. This is a highly technical area, but a solution 
is available and workable. No API is placed into the Windows 
Operating System without a purpose. There are documents inside 
Microsoft that detail what the API is supposed to do, and how it is 
to be used by programmers. To achieve full disclosure, all that need 
be done is to publish this information publicly--perhaps on the 
internet. API disclosure should not be limited to the Windows 
Operating System, but should also include Microsoft Office. Although 
this suite enjoys over ninety-five percent market share, it has not 
been addressed in the proposed settlement. This will allow Microsoft 
to evade the settlement's rules by simply moving functionality from 
Windows to Office, or offering special terms for Office that would 
not be allowed with Windows.
    If an API should change during the development process, all the 
company should have to do is post the details of the change within a 
reasonable number of days. It would be possible to completely 
automate the process so that when details of the changes are placed 
in the proper electronic ``folder'' for internal sharing among 
developers those changes would instantly disseminate to the Web. 
This will not require any access to any part of the Windows source 
code, but it will level the development ``playing field.''
    Another element of the proposed settlement is allowing Microsoft 
to retain the gains it has obtained through its browser 
monopolization. As a warning against future misconduct, I feel a 
just settlement would require full source-code disclosure of 
Internet Explorer. Since the PC interface seems to be migrating from 
the desktop to the Web browser, failure to do this will simply allow 
Microsoft to continue to do with Internet Explorer what it cannot do 
with Windows itself.
    I will close by bringing up a point which worries me greatly. 
The original decree contained a prohibition against Microsoft from 
taking knowing action to disable or adversely affect the operation 
of competing application products. This seems to have totally 
vanished from the proposed settlement. Microsoft has done this sort 
of thing many times in the past. Unless this anti-competitive 
behavior is addressed by the Court, I fear this business practice 
will continue. Indeed, having gone to trial and been convicted, I 
feel that the proposed final settlement is nothing less than an 
invitation to continue ``business as usual.'' It fails to provide 
even a meaningful penalty for failure to comply. The only penalty I 
see is an extension of the term for two more years.
    Lacking any further penalties, why would Microsoft even care 
whether it chose to ignore these so-called ``restrictions'' for five 
years or seven?
    I urge the Court to reject the proposed final settlement.
    John Moore
    1970 Fisher Trail, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30345



MTC-00008432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement.
    As a consumer I feel that Microsoft's products have made my life 
easier. I have felt from the beginning that this suit is an attempt 
by Microsoft's competitors to use the DOJ to ``get back'' at 
Microsoft. The DOJ under Janet Reno, allowed itself to be 
manipulated into prosecuting this case. Thankfully, the DOJ under 
Mr. Ashcroft is not buying into this farce. The States Attorneys 
Generals who continue to block a settlement seem to be doing so to 
grab headlines. If I lived in one of these states I'd make it a 
point to vote them out.



MTC-00008433

From: Raymond Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in support of Microsoft.
    Those people trying to block the settlement are just after the 
money, PLAIN and SIMPLE. Its not about the consumer, its about 
money.
    Raymond Browning



MTC-00008434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Consumer, Taxpayer and Shareholder I am opposed to any 
further litigation regarding Microsoft, it seems to me that we are 
penalizing a company who has developed the competitive edge in its 
industry and the competition is crying wolf. I would think that 
enough resources have been spent on both sides to move this 
litigation alone to closure, for the benefit of the consumer and the 
taxpayer.



MTC-00008435

From: Aila M. Horan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    It's time to get this whole politically inspired, Clinton-
initiated Microsoft travesty over with. Take the settlement and get 
busy on more important matters.
    Richard F. Horan
    9442 Clocktower Lane
    Columbia, MD 21046-1817



MTC-00008436

From: jrod(a)mindsping.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mam/Sir,
    As a graphics designer, I make my living using computers. 
Therefore the issue before us affects me in a uniquely personal way. 
The recent decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to allow 
Microsoft to remain intact even after a Federal judge ruled that 
they were indeed a monopoly and guilty of anti-competitive practices 
boggles my mind. This decision confirms to Microsoft that they are 
totally free and able to take up the whole personal and business 
computer market without anyone even lifting a finger in opposition. 
First it was Netscape and other smaller computer companies/makers. 
Who is going to be next? Are they going to destroy LINUX and the GNU 
free software movement because it's such a thorn in their side? 
Current memos floating around Microsoft that I have read confirm 
that Microsoft is getting ready to wage war on LINUX. Does everybody 
have to be running Microsoft products and pay them accordingly for 
that company to be satisfied? It seems that is so.
    Frankly, enough is enough. I refuse to stand by and allow a 
large conglomerate of a corporation like Microsoft to exclusively 
engulf the computer market and destroy the freedom of choice that I 
have today. The freedom I have to buy and purchase my own software 
(Microsoft's .NET strategy is trying to change all that with web 
based ``subscription'' fees). The freedom I have to switch out 
components of my machine without having to report them to big 
brother (the new windows activation features in XP become void if I 
change a certain number of hardware components). Microsoft does not 
care about my freedoms as a computer user. They only care about my 
pocket book. If we just stand by and watch, they will take over 
every gate to the internet and computing world, and then set up a 
toll booth and charge us fees for use.
    So I emplore you to please not back down to the Redmond giant in 
a feeble settlement. To Microsoft, money is nothing. Charging them 
with a fine for their corrupt practices and nothing more allows them 
to continue in their march toward total domination of the computing 
world without any resistance. Stand by your decision to not approve 
the DOJ's decision, and please fight for a win that would allow us 
as citizens and computer users to remain free in our choice of what 
we can and choose to do with our computers. Thank you for your time.
    Jason Rodriguez
    Graphics Artist/Designer
    797 Whitehurst Landing
    Virginia Beach, VA 23464



MTC-00008437

From: bgates
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25025]]

Date: 1/3/02  7:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
    We never felt there was any crime committed by Microsoft in the 
first place! What did they not want to do? They didn't want to share 
their system & their knowledge with their competitors???? That was 
the big criminal conspiracy??? Yes, they are an extremely large 
company; yes, all of their systems intermingle & co-mingle 
beautifully. Should Microsoft have stopped innovating & subsequently 
stopped growing?
    The other companies which try to keep Microsoft in the courts 
all the time would be better off if they spent their time trying to 
develop some new & innovative systems & playing the game fairly. We 
have never heard of any company that gives other companies the 
secrets of their business practices & allows them access to their 
innovative methods which (sad to say) earn money for THEM, and 
lessen the profits of their competitors, HAVE YOU? AND--We still 
don't understand how the states got involved and were even given 
monetary settlements for their supposed abuse at the hands of 
Microsoft. We hope the settlement with the 9 states ends this case. 
There has been an exorbitant amount of money spent on this case & 
the time expended by high paid, valuable employees of the Justice 
Department could be better spent bringing to justice REAL CRIMINALS 
such as terrorists, murderers, rapists, gangsters, robbers, etc, 
etc, etc. PLEASE CLOSE THE CASE!!!
    BILLY & ELIZABETH GATES



MTC-00008438

From: Ron Sadler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Its enough!! Lets get our economy moving again. This has had a 
very negative impact on all technology issues.
    Ron Sadler



MTC-00008439

From: Sandy (038) Jeff Melin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    May it please the Court: that I, as a non-techie computer user 
both at home and work for the last 12 years, recognize the benefits 
of Microsoft's products as superior in delivering utility and 
function to both the average and advanced business user. I also 
recognize the superiority of other vendors products in casual at 
home, the arts, and design applications.
    As a senior citizen, and lifelong student of business and 
economics; I find it abhorent that an innovator, the likes of which 
have been penalized before for similar achievement and creativity--
would again be brought to its knees by the least common denominator 
of our society--success! What has happened to the American Dream? Do 
we really want to squash the incentive to excel and achieve?
    Jeffrey N. Melin
    Carmel, IN



MTC-00008440

From: Carol Sandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I am writing to register my opinion that the Microsoft case 
should be settled as soon as possible and not be further litigated. 
I base my opinion on the fact that the federal government and nine 
states have already reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft 
to address the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals 
ruling. I believe that this settlement is tough, but reasonable and 
fair to all parties involved. I also believe that this settlement is 
good for consumers, industry and the American economy.
    Carol H. Sandt
    382 River Road
    Pequea, PA 17565 USA
    717-284-2881
    [email protected]



MTC-00008441

From: Kevin Kendrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I commend the US government and most of the states in 
reaching a settlement agreement with Microsoft, I believe that the 
process and the costs are out of line with the value the citizen/
consumers have received. This is not where we should be spending our 
valuable resources.
    I do not see how this ``U.S. settlement'' helps me and 
definitely do not see how the ``holdout states'' settlement is 
significantly better and worth the wait and expense of getting it. 
It is the job of the government to protect the consumer (not the 
competitors) against harmful practices. I am hard pressed to believe 
that consumers like me need the help of the government in deciding 
if we are getting the value out the product for the price. We vote 
with our checkbooks and companies respond by adding more features or 
reducing the price in line with the value they are delivering. As 
for the response of the competitors, they should be responding in 
the marketplace and not in the courtroom.
    I am a user of Microsoft products and have enjoyed all of the 
additional features they are constantly adding to make the product 
easier and better to use. I call these improvements and am well 
qualified to determine if I should purchase the product that offers 
the improvements. Microsoft remains diligent in providing what the 
customer demands and is spending what it takes to deliver the 
technology to the customer at a great prices.
    Let's get on with it and settle the case. It's dragged on too 
long. Let's spend government resources where they are needed, in 
helping people that need help.
    Quit wasting our money and SETTLE.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Kendrick
    Kevin Kendrick
    1305 Lombard Street #6
    San Francisco, CA 94109
    t: (415) 922-3078
    m: (415) 572-4447
    f: (419) 793-7306
    e: mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]



MTC-00008443

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:58pm
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.
    Note that Microsoft has been very helpful financially and 
technically to one of its arch rivals, Apple. Microsoft has 
maintained Word and Excel software on Macintosh, even though they 
probably have not made much money for their effort.
    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!
    James R. Lloyd
    514 Whitewing Lane
    Houston, TX 77079
    [email protected]



MTC-00008444

From: Arlene A DiRocco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Special interest groups and politicians who 
want some free publicity are attempting to derail the settlement 
agreement. September 11 is what we should be focusing on and the 
security of our nation and its people. Please finalize this and get 
it over with.
    Arlene A. DiRocco
    10 Old Colony Road
    Burlington, MA 01803



MTC-00008445

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25026]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft alone ...... the only reason they were persecuted 
is that Microsoft was a big target for Fed employees who didn't have 
anything to do. God Bless Bill Gates & Microsoft & Windows ..... did 
you ever have to navigate a computer using keystrokes?
    Dan Keith



MTC-00008446

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In full support of the recently reached Microsoft settlement, I 
wish to express my opinion. This is a reasonable and fair agreement 
and will be to the advantage of all concerned and most especially, 
the public. I am a voice of many seniors and am most grateful that 
this settlement has been reached, though I have no personal reason 
other than the enjoyment of the Microsoft programs.
    Sincerely,
    B. Eaton Rhea



MTC-00008447

From: HAROLD WEISSENBURG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please settle. Just like the VCR, we need a standard and 
Microsoft has nearly provided that.
    Now lets get
    Apple to merge!
    Harold W. Weissenburg ([email protected])



MTC-00008448

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a citizen of the United States, I believe that our gov't. has 
already wasted millions in their worthless pursuit of a company that 
has done more for technology and the economy than one could imagine. 
Any ``settlement'' should avoid any and all types of financial 
punishment.



MTC-00008449

From: Robert Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please lets get this thing behind us. Microsoft has done 
wonderful things for this country. Let the litigation end and force 
the lawyers to go find other work. BnB.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008450

From: Barb (038) Chuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12pm
Subject: class action law suit against microsoft
    It is my opinion that the U.S.G. is spending a lot of time 
trying to find a dead horse. The several states that are pushing to 
get a verdict friendly to them are just plain greedy. They (the 
states) hopped on a band wagon to get ``free dollars''. The thing 
that one must do at this point of time is say that they will suffer 
no more expenses,fire their lawyers and say that is enough. Not 
being a lawyer it is apparent that the USG has recovered many 
dollars through income tax and other methods.
    thank you.



MTC-00008451

From: Paula Hettler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring about the end to this lawsuit as soon as possible. 
I believe it is best for all involved.
    Paula Hettler
    1208 Nyssa
    McAllen, TX 78501



MTC-00008452

From: Marion Dye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have never been so upset in my life over the wanton waste of 
money for this whole lawsuit.
    Why should anyone be penalized for being intelligent and 
industrious, and making things happen. It's a shame that someone has 
to sue because they came a 'day late and a dollar short' to compete. 
Where was this 'person'(s) in the beginning?? They could have 
started this whole thing too. They had every opportunity.
    But no, they would rather whine & moan that they can't compete--
go figure? For the service provided, and being a consumer, I don't 
feel that Microsoft has been unfair to us. We revel in the 'new' 
world they have provided for us.
    I would hope that this 'rubbish' is over--let the competitors 
compete for a piece of the pie. . . . . . . .not sue!
    I thank you for the opportunity to add my voice to the `outcry'.
    Sincerely,
    Marion Dye



MTC-00008453

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Just dropping you a line asking for the government to stop 
attacking Microsoft and use our general tax revenues toward more 
productive purposes. Get politics out of free enterprise.
    thank you,
    JIM Thomas



MTC-00008454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I have never written to the government about anything in my 49 
years. However I felt compelled to send a brief email message about 
the Microsoft settlement. Considering the other crisis this country 
has been hit with in recent times. I feel the government has spent 
enough of our tax dollars on a witch hunt. The time has come to 
finally settle this matter and move onto more pressing National 
concerns! Please put me in the column of the Microsoft suit be 
settled, final answer.
    Yours,
    Robert Rodgers



MTC-00008455

From: Regchuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:20pm
    As a deeply concerned and productive citizen I urge the court to 
accept the settlement proposed in the Microsoft case. The advances 
made by our country by virtue of computer technology has allowed 
enhanced prosperity across the nation. Competition put us there, and 
it must not be curtailed simply because others feel threatened. 
Every business feels threatened by competition, and that leads to 
enhanced creativity and well serves our public interest. One look at 
the marketplace leaves the undeniable impression that any person or 
company with the guts to get out there and compete, is allowed to do 
just that. Witness the number of computer oriented companies that 
existed when Microsoft came about, versus the staggering number 
successfully competing today. That would not be the case if the 
field were anything but level. The proof, is looking us in the eye. 
I consider this case to be fairly considered, but unrealistically 
brought to court when viewed in the bright light of cold truth. The 
expense to the taxpayer has been great enough, and the settlement 
remedy fair.
    Charles M. Asbury
    Attorney at Law
    Sacramento, California



MTC-00008456

From: Walt Haas (www.xmission.com/haas)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I oppose the settlement negotiated by DoJ in the Microsoft case. 
I support stronger protections against continued criminal conduct by 
Microsoft as requested by the nine dissenting states, including my 
own State of Utah.
    Walter O. Haas
    717 Ninth Avenue
    Salt Lake City UT 84103
    ``Linux is a cancer''--Steve Ballmer
    ``First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
    Then they fight you. Then you win.''--Gandhi



MTC-00008457

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:22pm
Subject: the settlement
    Bill Gates and his Companies have advanced computer technologies 
beyond anyone's imagination. Leave him run his companies his way and 
we'll all profit.
    Victor S. Frake
    [email protected]



MTC-00008458

From: Larry Greene

[[Page 25027]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please drop all anti-trust suits against Microsoft. Microsoft 
has done nothing wrong. Micorsoft is simply popular and deserving of 
success. Bill Gates is an American hero. Anti-trust laws are anti-
business and should be abolished. If monopoly busting is a goal of 
the Department of Justice, then go after the true culprits: Amtrak, 
the U.S. Postal Service, public education, and Indian casinos to 
name but a few.
    Larry Greene
    127 Rt. 2A
    Preston, CT 06365
    860-887-5350



MTC-00008459

From: Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I strongly agree with the Microsoft Settlement. 
This is in the interest of progress and freedom to bring to the 
consumers the best products at the reasonable prices.
    Suresh C. Rastogi, Ph.D.



MTC-00008460

From: Wes Farmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I strongly support the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
believe we, as a people, have many more important things to do than 
stifle innovation.



MTC-00008461

From: Russell Yuma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I was not in favor of litigation against Microsoft in the first 
place. Now that a settlement has been proposed I believe any further 
litigation should be terminated. The States against settlement are 
wrong in asking for further restrictions on Microsoft and are 
extreme in their thinking. They do not understand competitive 
business and are in fact hurting the consumers they say they want to 
protect.
    There should be no more consideration for further litigation. 
All this will do is damage the economy and not help consumers in any 
way.
    Do you hear consumers complaining? I think not and believe 
consumers are satisfied. So, let's put an end to all this action 
against Microsoft.
    Russell Yuma
    PO Box 165
    Oakland, OR 97462



MTC-00008462

From: Meredith Raney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1/3/02
    Dear DOJ Sirs,
    It is my understanding that the purpose of the anti-trust laws 
is to protect the consumer and only the consumer. As far as I can 
tell, the only entities even alleged to be damaged in the Microsoft 
case are a few whining competitors of Microsoft.
    I have seen no evidence presented that any consumer has been 
damaged by Microsoft, so leave Microsoft alone.
    Please, just do your job and enforce the law as written to 
protect the consumer and don't worry about a few companies who can't 
run with the big dogs.
    If the consumer starts getting hurt, we'll be the first to let 
you know. Then, and only then, should you jump in and enforce the 
law.
    Sincerely yours,
    Meredith Raney
    2488 Burns Ave.
    Melbourne, FL 32935 Phone (321) 254-5481



MTC-00008463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think the DOJ settlement concerning the Microsoft settlement 
is fair. Keeping the company intact is in the interests of all. 
However oversight needs to be taken for a period of time collecting 
any instances of not following the points of the settlement.These 
should be documented and any serious non-compliance of this matter 
should cancel the settlement. Microsoft has been given a chance to 
work out this matter and should take advantage of the settlement and 
work fairly in the marketplace.
    Ted Maligranda
    82 David st
    South River
    NJ 08882



MTC-00008464

From: Dayna Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor or the Department of Justice stopping any actions 
it is pursuing against Microsoft. The stock has plummited and 
numerous investors like myself have lost a lot. I feel if the 
government had not pursued Microsoft, the stock market, technology 
stocks, would not be in the condition it is in. We can thank Bill 
Clinton.
    If Microsoft has done something so terribly wrong, then why is 
it every government agency and business uses Microsoft products to 
run their computer systems? I am a Federal employee and everything 
we use at our agency is a Microsoft product. All laptops, desktops 
and shared workstations are run by Microsoft.
    I'll bet if some took a look around the Department of Justice 
your computer systems are all Microsoft based. How about email? How 
about work processing programs? How about calendar systems? How 
about spread sheet programs? Should I continue? What about companies 
like Intel? What about their processors? What other companies use 
their processors in as many computers?
    Drop what you are doing, let them get back to business. 
Microsoft is producing the best computer software in the world. Let 
them continue.



MTC-00008465

From: Hollis Scarbrough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to discontinue all litigation 
against Microsoft. I was totally opposed to the government's role in 
the action taken against Microsoft. Microsoft should not be 
penalized for being a success.



MTC-00008466

From: Randy Hackney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Public comment period for the Tunney Act. Leave Microsoft 
alone; let the settlement agreement stand without further litigation 
being allowed. The last thing the American economy needs is more 
litigation that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles 
innovation.
    Don't let the lawyer lobby keep this alive for their benefits in 
fees; nor allow the competitors who want to use Microsoft to defeat 
the public interest in encouraging innovation.
    Judy Hackney
    Voter, District 1 of GA



MTC-00008467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I found the settlement being by far in the interest of all us 
consumers and the entire economy.In settling the case forthright we 
will be able to focus on a much higher priorities:security,waging 
this war and restore our economic growth. At time like this,I 
repeat;The Nation at war and with a collapsing economy, this 
settlement will be definetly in the interest of all America .
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Testa



MTC-00008468

From: Stuart Holden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was pleased to hear that the Microsoft Antitrust case had 
settled in Federal Court, but then disappointed to hear that the 
states ( including my own--Connecticut) were continuing their own 
cases. In my 25 year career I have used many software products from 
a variety of vendors--Borland, Symantec,
    Oracle, Microsoft, Lotus, IBM, Sterling Commerce, MicroPro 
(WordStar), Red Hat, Aldus, to name a few. I have found Microsoft 
software to be the most intuitive and easy to use software; the 
commonality across it's products has saved countless training 
dollars.
    While Microsoft could be viewed as a monopoly, it can also be 
viewed as a provider of products which work together in a consistent 
fashion. Doesn't anyone

[[Page 25028]]

remember ``IBM Compatible'' which ``meant buy it, see if it works 
and doesn't stop anything else from working''.
    The courts should get out of the marketplace and let consumers 
decide with their wallets.
    Stuart Holden
    Shelton, Connecticut



MTC-00008469

From: Nancy T. von Hohenleiten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement



MTC-00008470

From: Larry (038) Sandy Bancroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:50pm
Subject: overzelous greed!?
    All we heard for years is how Microsoft created unfair 
competition. Now, we seem to have governments that aren't happy with 
the results. Maybe we need to check out what is driving them. It 
seems to me that the states & the federal government can't get 
enough corporate dollars that consumers pay for.
    The Tobacco & Microsoft settlement for instance, has shown state 
governments that if they tie-up corporate America in the courts long 
enough they will get free dollars. In Illinois the state in 2000 
sent out refund checks to tax payers from the tobacco settlement. 
Small as they were, the state said not to worry we have plenty more 
dollars coming from the settlement. Of course the money was spent 
faster than it was coming in now we have budget short falls. Yes not 
all of our budget blunders could have been foreseen but the point is 
that money was for smoking related illness that the state will be 
stuck with in the years to come.
    But then again who pays corporate America? No the consumer. Now 
is the time to say to all states & the usdoj. sign on to the 
Microsoft settlement are be left out in the cold without a dime. 
Microsoft has offered a fair settlement to all but some never seem 
happy. Don't get me wrong it's just not the states that aren't happy 
many inefficiently run companies are just as unhappy. They want more 
in the way of free handouts too. America was built on hard work by 
both cooperate & labor. The freedom to take an idea make it work & 
be so revolutionary in a industry is the American dream. Take the 
settlement with all the perks just let Microsoft have the ability to 
continue innovate. For that matter let all companies have the right 
to innovate.
    Sincerely
    Larry Bancroft
    Shareholder



MTC-00008471

From: Bill Richardsn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As usual the Hatch justice system and the DOJ 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 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. Orin 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? Coca-Cola and 
Pepsi came out of their rift better companies because of a system we 
treasure here in this United States ``free enterprise''. Would you 
make Ford put in Chevy engines because Ford in using it's own 
engines is predatory and unfair. Is any thing called a ``free 
enterprise system'' fair? No it is predatory and unfair. That is the 
basis of capitalism. If the shoe were on the other foot for Hatch he 
would be gloating and all puffed up like the banty rooster he 
resembles Concerning Microsoft and Netscape, Ford and Chevy had the 
same problems as did Coke and Pepsi, Where Coke had a 90% market 
Pepsi had none in comparison, they remarketed and repackaged their 
products and bought some other popular come latelys Mountain Dew and 
so forth to enhance their market base to compete, then Coke had to 
do the same thing. Ford and Chevy continually made different styles 
of automobiles to appeal to different strata of the market. You must 
be blind to the times when competition was paramount and the 
devising of new strategies be came what stuff men and women were 
made of, competition proved the playing field and then leveled it, 
due to those fresh ideas and innovations of those individuals. 
(Harley in the Chevy design of the 50?s that gave Ford it's impetus 
to innovate, in example)
    You people need a reality check.
    William ``Bill'' Richardson
    Cheif Operating Officer
    Richcorp, Inc. http://www.richcorp.net/>



MTC-00008472

From: SusanHobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:51pm
Subject: Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice 
Department has now
    Please add my support to the settlement that the Justice 
Department has now offered Microsoft. I believe it is in the 
interest of the American economy and in the interest of innovative 
freedom to support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Susan A. Hobbs



MTC-00008473

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:50pm
Subject: America Punishes Success
    Dear DOJ,
    Individuals and businesses continue the struggle against Federal 
Government. The economy does not grow; rates of return are down to 
low single digits; and the high tech industry is on ts back.
    The punishing tax rates in the USA and the abuse of the legal 
system by greedy lawyers just holds America back.
    I enjoy Microsoft products. For what little I pay for them, I 
receive tremendous value. Why Oh why do you let Microsoft's 
competitors--with their greedy lawyers--abuse the legal system to 
try to punish Microsoft for being successful? We consumers are not 
complaining about Microsoft's products or prices!!!
    Please please stop punishing Microsoft and lets get the economy 
rolling again.
    Very truly yours,
    Richard Stouts
    P.O. Box 4378
    Pahrump, Nv. 89041-4378



MTC-00008474

From: Yemm (038) Hart Ltd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:51pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
    Hello DOJ:
    We are a small 2 person business, selling special building 
products in the US and Europe. We could not have had the success we 
have had without the benefit of integrated software from Microsoft. 
Business is difficult enough, and we have little time to invest into 
the workings of our computers or software too, however we must. We 
have found that there is more of a chance for integration errors 
when there is more than one type of software. So we appreciate the 
Microsoft Windows, Explorer and Office software all working 
together, almost seamlessly.
    We have followed the case hoping Microsoft's advisories would 
not prevail. The settlement as we understand it is fair and will 
benefit many young people who otherwise may not get the chance to 
learn and interact with such an essential tool as a computer and 
good software. I would hope that the DOJ could divert its assets 
devoted to this case towards seeking out foreign and domestic 
terrorists because that is the most serious issue we in the 
civilized world face today.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen W Yemm, Yemm & Hart Ltd



MTC-00008475

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Because of their dominant position in the computer operating 
system market I the consumer can walk into any office or home and do 
some constructive work immediately. If the market consisted of 
plethora of competing OS's that would be nearly impossible. My life 
is better, easier and much more productive with the essential 
standardization that has happened largely due to market conditions. 
I have owned computers with different operating systems and while 
theirs is far from perfect, the fact that it is the same whether at 
work or in a cyber cafe in UlanBator, Mongolia has improved my 
computing life not harmed it.
    Christopher Stahler
    Wenatchee, WA



MTC-00008476

From: Hite, Peggy A.

[[Page 25029]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/3/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: My opinion regarding Microsoft's Antitrust Lawsuit Although 
Microsoft's domination of the market could be perceived/interpreted 
as undue control in the market, the packaging made the end product 
far easier for users like me who want one easy, complete unit 
(software and all) ready to be used. If I had to make more decisions 
up front about issues such as whether to use internet explorer or 
netscape, I would not have known what to use. By virtue of choosing 
a windows product, I wanted a compact, streamlined, ready to use 
package of software--without having to spend hours deciding which of 
this and which of that, when I wouldn't have understood the choices 
anyway.
    Because of Microsoft, we are all more savvy than we would have 
been without their readily available packages to get us started. 
They should not be punished for making an entire system more user 
friendly.
    Peggy Hite, CPA, Ph.D.
    2304 Linden Hill Rd
    Bloomington, IN 47401



MTC-00008477

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please to all conmcverned: settle tjis matter and let's get onto 
positive matters and stope wasting money.
    Good luck.
    Robert Gregoire
    Rumney New Happshire



MTC-00008478

From: John S. Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:54pm
Subject: Stupid Clinton
    CC: RFC-822=Finflash 1-2-02.UM.A. 1154.142@commpartners....
    Dear DOJ,
    You people can and do screw up more things than you take care of 
or at least it seems. I believe it was really the Clit-tongue 
administration. Leave people alone, Microsoft does more good that we 
benifit from directly as consummers than any other company, when it 
comes to computers. I dislike the government enough without you 
people messing around with my computer and software at home. Say 
hello to Mr Ashcroft for me, I have trust in him.
    Regards, God Bless America &
    George Bush
    John
    ([email protected])



MTC-00008479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Early settlement is in the consumer's interest and it should be 
implemented as soon as possible. Microsoft has done more for the 
technology and consumer than any other company. This litigation non-
sense should be finished once and for all.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008480

From: crussell4
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/3/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current remedies are totally inadequate to 
protect the consumer.
    I have thought for years that the monopolistic and predatory 
business practices of Microsoft required the splitting of the 
company into an OS company and an applications company. In that way, 
all application developers are on an equal footing...Microsoft vs 
independents. As we found out in 1983 with the break-up of AT&T, the 
development of telecommunications technology flourished. Further 
remedies may be appropriate in this age of the internet and other 
future possibilities.
    Above all, Microsoft must not be allowed to flood schools with 
software as part of this settlement. It would be tantamount to the 
government promoting the MS monopoly.
    Chuck Russell in Great Neck



MTC-00008481

From: R. C. Dobson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot believe that we/our government is still chasing after 
Microsoft's dollars-and that is what this witch hunt is about more 
than just ``justice''.
    Why didn't we look into the anti-trust area regarding Cargill 
taking over Continental Grain? At least we don't have to use 
computers and we could always buy an ``Apple''. I'll bet virtually 
every meal eaten in the U.S. has a food directly or produced from 
grain that Cargill/Continental Grain has touched.
    Leave Microsoft alone and call off the 9 + or--states 
individually pursuing their own agenda. Microsoft may have bent the 
rules, but Sun or many others would have likely done the same if 
they could have. I remember when you were never sure of the 
compatability of programs. Microsoft has done a great service in 
standardizing many applications. (Now if Windows always operated 
just as it is supposed to, but I digress.)
    Thank you,
    R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
    R. C. Dobson, Ph.D.
    215 Starbright Court
    Wellington, CO 80549
    cell: 970-215-7173 res:970-568-3991
    e-mail: [email protected] or
    largeanimalconsulting.com
    fax: 970.568.3992



MTC-00008482

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe that the proposed settlement is just and fair. It is 
good for consumers and industry.
    Dr. and Mrs Joseph Fox



MTC-00008483

From: E. H. John Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I believe that consumers should have equal access to application 
system providers other than Microsoft. If this is accomplished, then 
I believe the judgment should be accepted so that all the 
uncertainties that are affecting Microsoft will be eliminated and 
the company can go forward for the benefit of consumers and, also, 
its stockholders.
    E. H. John Johnson



MTC-00008484

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Tunney Act
    Dear Court of Appeals:
    I very much support the Tunney Act as currently written (1/02/
02). As a Professor of Management at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, I have long felt that Microsoft has been unfairly attacked 
in their business practices.
    Since they are willing to accept the current conditions under 
the Tunney Act let's bring this situation to a quick resolution.
    For the record I do not own stock in Microsoft or have anything 
to do with the company.
    Best wishes,
    Marc Schniederjans
    5901 S. 72nd Street
    Lincoln, NE 68516
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00008485

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an a middle aged female of average intelligence who has 
been watching the Justice Department go after Microsoft for what it 
considers 'unfair and predatory practices' for several years now. I 
have heard both sides speak and I must say that while I believe that 
Microsoft did use practices that some may consider questionable, 
(There are also many who believe that WalMart, Intel and several 
others have done the same thing.) they were also improving the lives 
of many average Americans who would not be able to sit at their 
computers today and point and click to go wherever they want.
    Before the Windows operating system became the industry 
standard, the average person, was not able to use a computer at all. 
Therefore Microsoft has helped bolster not only itself but also all 
the hardware and software manufacturers out there, including those 
who have come out publicly against them. I have heard more than one 
CEO of a large company make the claim that without Microsoft's 
innovation their job of running their company would have been made 
more difficult. Most of us don't even remember that this whole 
lawsuit began with a disgruntled company wanting to charge a premium 
price for what Microsoft wanted to give away free. (Netscape) 
Somehow this takes most of the meat out of the claim that 
Microsoft's practices are bad for the

[[Page 25030]]

 consumer. It may not be too healthy for the companies wanting to 
make money, but such is our wonderful free enterprise system. Only 
the strong will survive and Microsoft's very survival over the last 
years certainly is testimony to their strength amoung consumers. 
Yes, it may seem unfair that computer manufacturers have to pay 
extra to Microsoft to install Windows, but so would the consumers. 
They would probably rather see the consumer pay the extra money for 
Windows, which most will gladly spend. Windows is a licensed product 
and therefore it should cost manufacturers to install it. They 
should also keep in mind that computers would not be in as 
widespread of use and therefore bolstering computer company profits, 
if it weren't for their ease of use with the Windows operating 
system.
    The Government also employs monopolistic practices in many of 
it's daily operations. I pay many taxes for things that I don't even 
know about and yet the Justice Department has not once suggested 
that the current systems be examined.
    I recently had an unpleasant experience that convinced me even 
more that Microsoft has done only good for the average computer 
user. (I'm saying average now, not educated.) Our home computer was 
the victim of a virus which totally wiped out Windows. We were 
trying to use MSDOS to save important files and found it too 
frustrating and ended up reformatting our hard drive just so we 
could reinstall Windows. I am only one consumer, but I know that I 
speak for many when I say to the Justice Department, ``LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE AND LET THEM CONTINUE TO DEVELOP PRODUCTS WHICH MAKE
    ALL OF OUR LIVES (INCLUDING YOURS!) EASIER.''
    Thank You for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion. I 
love being an American...GOD BLESS AMERICA!!



MTC-00008486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I've followed the US Department of Justice litigation against 
Microsoft for several years. It is my opinion that the US Department 
of Justice should not pursue further litigation against Microsoft.
    Microsoft is a large benefit to the United States and the world 
today. They are innovators and market creators, and they have 
created more jobs than any other corporation in today's economy. The 
corporation has allowed small investors to become financially 
independent by creating individual investment opportunities for 
them.
    More importantly; Microsoft has pioneered, developed, and led 
the market in a very successful technology that has allowed the 
United States to lead the world in data processing and machine 
communications.
    How can the US Department of Justice think this is preventing 
competition? Microsoft has created opportunity for competition. This 
corporation has standardized the industry and fostered growth 
through excellence in design engineering. Competing corporations 
would have fractured industry standards which would have raised 
prices to the consumer and stifled growth.
    If competing corporations had a better idea, a better mouse trap 
so to speak, and had been able to succeed in the market place, in 
real market place competition, they would have been the first to 
stifle competition. That seems to be the problem. Competing 
corporations were not able to compete in the market place and have 
resorted to influencing government litigation to stifle Microsoft.
    This is my opinion and I thank you for allowing me to express 
myself.
    Stan Foster
    211 Robin Lane
    Panama City Beach, FL 32407
    850-249-2110
    [email protected]



MTC-00008487

From: Paul J Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement q
    Please tally my vote in favor of not imposing any penalties on 
Microsoft or its creator, Bill Gates. An American hero who has the 
talent and ability and drive to create a better mousetrap should be 
rewarded, not punished. Our present day technological capabilities 
with personal computers couldn't exist without the products 
developed and marketed by Microsoft. Whatever rewards Mr. Gates has 
garnered from his contributions to our way of life are well earned. 
On his way to improving our lives, he has created untold wealth for 
untold thousands of others including the very individuals who are 
actively trying to promote the suppression of Microsoft and it's 
superior products. Our nation has no business trying to downgrade 
the production of capable companies for the benefit of competitors 
who don't have the talent to do equally well. We need every bit of 
forward progress that people of ability can provide. Punishing 
Microsoft and Bill Gates is the equivalent of jailing Columbus, 
gagging Newton and Copernicus, burning Galileo's books or 
prohibiting Einstein from publishing and teaching. This country is 
great because of people like Bill Gates and our reaction should 
encourage more like him and not grind them down. Should we prohibit 
Microsoft from tying Internet Explorer into Windows? Should we 
prohibit a furniture maker from putting a fourth leg on a chair 
because his competitors don't know how to make a good fourth leg? 
Let Microsoft go; turn it loose and America will be better for it. 
When the competitors develop truly advanced innovations, Microsoft 
will not be able to hold them back unless our own government 
contributes to their suppression. Thank you.



MTC-00008488

From: David Clarke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief that a settlement should be made between 
Microsoft and our State and Federal Governments. Innovation is good 
for all concerned and Microsoft has been instrumental in providing 
this not only in our country, but throughout the world. It is my 
opinion that we put this behind us and move forward instead of 
backwards.
    Sincerely,
    David Clarke



MTC-00008489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree with the settlement and hope that it will be executed.
    Ed and Reva Potter



MTC-00008491

From: Ian Joyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is guilty deserving suitable punishment. The current 
settlement with them is not suitable punishment.
    Ian Joyner
    Expert shortcut tip: Dump Windows; get OS X; fire MCSE certified 
time
    wasters. XP--eXtremely Pathetic!
    [email protected]://homepages.tig.com.au/ijoyner



MTC-00008492

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:17pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
    I feel a settlement should be made as soon as possible. Included 
should be a clause disallowing further litigation whatsoever in the 
future. This settlement would also help get the economy going again 
since all the effort being expended to destroy MSFT can be directed 
to the common good.
    NF



MTC-00008493

From: Chetan Desai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to appalaud the Department of Justice in dealing 
with Microsoft anti-trust violations and reaching a fair settlement. 
I understand that most of 9 states that continue to pursue 
additional penalties are politically motivated and driven by 
Microsoft competitors and/or greed in trying sue a big corporation 
with deep pockets. If there is a legal way to do this, I would urge 
you to separate yourself from the nine states that will not settle 
for anything less then destruction of Microsoft. BTW, I am software 
engineer and truly understand the areas where Microsoft has been 
wrong and where Microsoft has been an aggressive competitor who went 
a little too far into the illegal. However, the remedy (several 
proposed are downright un-American and crazy) sought by some of 
states are equivalent to a death sentence for stealing an item from 
a retail store. Best Wishes to the Justice Department and keep up 
the good work!!
    Chetan Desai

[[Page 25031]]

    2042 Pinecrest Drive
    Morgantown, WV 26505
    (304)292-0683



MTC-00008494

From: Robert Kossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the frivolous lawsuits and get on with life.



MTC-00008495

From: Ted Keesee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop punishing American Corporations for being 
successful. Microsoft products have been reasonably priced and of 
exceptional quality. I am very disappointed that the government is 
wasting time and money pursuing this matter. There are much bigger 
problems to solve in this world than trying to figure out how to 
punish people for providing products consumers want and are happy 
with. It is time to get over it!
    Sincerely
    Ted Keesee
    500 Forestdale Drive
    Atlanta, GA 30342



MTC-00008496

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is in the best interest of the public at large to proceed 
with the settlement that has been agreed to by Microsoft and the 
DOJ. It would be a mistake to prolong the litigation when there is 
an opportunity to reach a settlement now. The opposition has had 
their day in court---now it's time to move on with the settlement at 
hand.
    Melvin O. Moehle



MTC-00008497

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:26pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I FEEL THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR AND I SUPPORT THE COMPANY FOR 
THEIR MANY INOVATIONS WHICH HAS REDUCED THE COST OF COMPUTER 
THROUGHPUT.
    SINCERELY
    JEROME L. SOBEL



MTC-00008498

From: warren stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:29pm
    Subject: As a free person of the world I implore you to keep As 
a free person of the world I implore you to keep the world free. 
People do not have to but the product of any company if they choose 
not to. Microsoft may have bought some companies but the owners did 
not have to sell them to Microsoft.
    Do not split up Microsoft as it might stop ALL new inventions 
becoming worldwide and only the very privileged might get them. I 
reiterate. Please do not split companies up. If a company does 
wrong, the other companies in that field do not work with them or 
the public boycotts them.
    Keep microsoft the way it is.
    Thank You
    Warren stewart Perth



MTC-00008499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:35pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    According to Microsoft, their number one competitor is Linux and 
other open source software. Most people agree. The proposed DOJ 
settlement is supposed to make API's and protocols available to 
other developers. However, the current proposed settlement has a 
loophole that would deny to Linux access to Microsoft proprietary 
protocols and file formats. An agreement which which excludes 
Microsoft's main competitor is almost completely empty.
    File formats and network protocols should require approval of an 
independent review committee such as the IETF and be made available 
to open source developers. Open protocols and data interchange 
formats are an essential part of the Department of Defense's Joint 
Technical Architecture (JTA--see http://www-jta.itsi.disa.mil/). 
Proprietary protocols are at odds with the both the JTA and the need 
to have competitive sources available for military communications 
equipment.
    Larry Doyle
    Software Architect--Small Unit Operations Situation Awareness 
System (SUOSAS) A program of the Defense Advanced Research Project 
Agency (DARPA) program
    ITT Industries
    Home address:
    314 Stone Rd
    Hazlet
    NJ 07730
    The opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily 
endorsed by ITT Industries, DARPA or the DoD.



MTC-00008500

From: Bob Giese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Only the lawyers are getting rich. 
Where would the P.C. be without Microsoft?
    Robert Giese



MTC-00008501

From: R Patrcik Scanlon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    Can you folks please get this thing settled. I think that what 
is on the table is fine. I have no interest in this other than it is 
time to move on. I think that Microsoft's competitors are trying to 
derail.
    R. Patrick Scanlon



MTC-00008502

From: The Washingtons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly urge you to impose a harsher penalty on Micro$oft for 
their illegal activities. I don't believe they take seriously the 
findings of the court and are not acting in a manner consistent with 
halting their illegal conduct and promoting competition in the 
industry. The court should be insistent on depriving Microsoft of 
its illegal gains, not extending their monopoly into the education 
field.
    Craig Washington
    Happy New Year



MTC-00008503

From: Bill Rice
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/3/02  9:48pm
Subject: windows xp
    Dear Mr. Gates
    I am a long time Microsoft supporter . . . have bought almost 
every upgrade version of Windows, Office, FrontPage.etc !!!! . . . I 
work on as laptop and have a desktop for home, a laptop for my wife, 
and two desktops for my 2 children. I recently purchased the latest 
version of everything available.spending over $750 before the 
holidays. I have been buying Microsoft products for years . . .
    I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED that the XP operating system requires 
that I purchase an additional license, for hundreds of dollars, for 
every PC in my house . . . (this is not obvious on the purchased 
product, from the retail salesperson, on the Microsoft website, or 
in any advertisement.I looked! I didn't have my bi-focals and 
couldn't read the VERY SMALLEST PRINT) I have always supported 
Microsoft.and have not supported the federal and state lawsuits . . 
.
    BUT . . . I FEEL ROBBED.no salesman warned me that, unlike all 
previous versions . . . I would have to buy separate, EXPENSIVE 
licenses for each computer in my home.(I buy a VCR tape.and use it 
in all my VCRs.) . . . so I am sad to say that tonight I am writing 
to Judge Kollar-Kotally as well as to all of the states attorneys 
general . . . To convey my personal experience.that Microsoft is not 
playing fair with its market advantage . . . UNTIL TONIGHT, I WAS AN 
ARDENT MICROSOFT SUPPORTER . . . THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ON THE 
XP BOX THAT THE UPGRADE WILL ONLY WORK ON ONE COMPUTER . . . I feel 
misled and disappointed . . . my children use XP at school and I 
wanted to use the same operating system at home for projects and 
homework.but to put the operating system on their PCs costs over 
$500 and there is no alternative operating system platform. . . .
    I think the uniformity of platform created by a broadly 
successful Microsoft has helped propel significant increases in our 
national productivity. I now believe that Microsoft is taking 
advantage of the ``little guy,'' and that this pricing scheme may 
reflect a portion of what others in the technology industry have 
been complaining about. I didn't understand or appreciate the 
problem until tonight.
    Thanks for taking the time to review these comments.
    Bill Rice
    CC:Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw, . . .

[[Page 25032]]



MTC-00008504

From: Clif Ars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel strongly that it would be in the best interest of the 
public and the economy for the ``Tunney Act'' to go through. I have 
little doubt that many view Microsoft's domination within the 
technology sector as a monopoly, but to define a true monopoly the 
public's benefit and interest must be harmed. As a consumer, I 
cannot see where I or the consumer base at large has been hurt by 
Microsoft. We as a nation should realize the part that this company 
played in the strongest economy growth in history. The jobs, the 
taxable revenue, and the products that have put this country on the 
map in the I.T. World. Please take a look at some of these companies 
at the forefront of this costly litigation and ask yourself, ``Is it 
the consumer that they are trying to help, or themselves?'' Is this 
the cost of doing business in America?
    What company is going to be targeted next?
    Thank you



MTC-00008505

From: Rick Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I wish my Attorney 
General could look past his campaign contributions from Silicon 
Valley and support it also.
    Richard Becker
    El Cajon, CA



MTC-00008506

From: Ross Fontenot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that you should either accept the agreement by microsoft 
and the states or drop all charges. If you try to screw Microsoft 
they will screw you out of millions of tax dollars by taking the 
offer made to them by British Columbia. Microsoft was just as big as 
a monopoly as Walmart but no one ever brought charges against them 
even though charges should be brought against them because they 
squash their competitors especially in small cities like I live in. 
That is why I buy everything on the net because I will not support 
Walmart but I will support Microsoft because they care about their 
consumers and try to be the best while offering great products. DO 
NOT stop this by limiting their innovation. If you want to screw 
someone scew Walmart.



MTC-00008507

From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I sincerely urge acceptance. Lets move on.



MTC-00008508

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/3/02  10:02pm
Subject: MS Anti-trust and Tunney Act of 1974
    Good Folk--
    In accordance with the Tunney Act of 1974 I'm offering my public 
comment on the MicroSoft Anti-trust case now in it's 60-day public 
comment period that started on Nov. 28. I hav worked with computers 
and computer software in a wide variety of jobs for the past 35 
years.
    I do not think that the current settlement is in the best 
interest of the American people. Microsoft's arguements that browser 
(et al) functionality is part of the operating system is specious 
and without any technically provable merit whatsoever. Further, 
their dominance of the computing field today parallels IBM's over 30 
years ago; even the argumentative stance of the corporate legal 
staff is vaguely familiar to me. And, of course, both companies, at 
the times of their litigation, made and delivered nororiously shoddy 
software products.
    Please contact me if you have any questions or need more 
information ...
    Leon S. Chojnacki CBCP



MTC-00008509

From: jerry bergeron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel this lawsuit has consumed way too much time and expense 
on both sides...
    Leave the settlement as is...



MTC-00008510

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have followed this case from the very start. As an educator, 
parent and computer user. I think the current proposed settlement 
offer is more than fair. It is outrageous to consider complaints 
that: A) the computers offered are out of date or reconditioned. ALL 
computers are out of date within 6 months to a year! If these 
computers are networked in a school, they are simply work stations. 
1. By supplying windows systems, MS is being self serving. If anyone 
else had offered windows, they would have loved it! NO other company 
in the history of our country has EVER been asked to supply a 
product other than their own as part of a settlement! Has the 
government asked General Motors to supply Chrysler products as a 
remedy? and Firestone? NEVER! It has always been, fix, repair, 
REPLACE, supply or refund. The precedent this would create is to 
ridiculous to consider!
    I support an immediate settlement...as proposed by Microsoft.
    Bob Minott



MTC-00008511

From: Joy Staveley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices,
    I am a Mac Computer (Apple) User, but I also use Microsoft 
software. I believe the recent settlement proposal fo the Microsoft 
lawsuit is fair and in the best interest of the end user--people 
like me.Microsoft has made a huge positive difference in the 
personal and business computer world. Their user friendly, practical 
applications have advanced the technology of computers faster than 
one could imagine! It's time to put this lawsuit behind us, and move 
forward. It has taken a long time to get to this point. Careful 
review and decision has been made. I would urge the court to follow 
through and confirm the decision.
    Sincerely,
    Joy Iris Staveley, Vice President
    Canyoneers, Inc.
    [email protected]>
    PO Box 2997
    Flagstaff, AZ 86003



MTC-00008512

From: William
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:08pm
Subject: Please read this letter
    Judge,
    I am very concerned about the direction that this case is 
turning into and its like other case brought before MS. Now its time 
for MS to wiggle out of this like they have so many other times. MS 
proposes that they give a billion dollars of there products and 
services to schools. I am shocked that anyone that knows anything 
about the software industries can even call this a penalty. This is 
like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop (I am sorry for 
using this old phrase). This penalty is a reward to MS. In years to 
come they have more buyers of there product and they get to dominate 
a market that they have battle for many years with Apple.
    I propose:
    First a billion dollars is a slap on the hands (which is what 
they want) for MS. You need to get really tough with this people or 
they are back to doing this again (I my opinion they already are 
doing this with Windows XP). It needs to really hurt this company 
and 20 billion is much better. Second have them put some of this 
money into a trust fund for schools to choose which computer system 
and software they believe is better. Last and most important if they 
have wronged other companies they need to pay these companies big 
dollars or what good does this whole process accomplish? Netscape 
was my web browser of choice for many years but now its MS explorer. 
Not because MS did better but Netscape could not compete under the 
unfair market that existed at the time and ended up selling off to 
AOL. These people have been robbed of there hard work. MS needs to 
pay the wrong to these people!
    I also believe that MS needs to be broken into many smaller 
companies but this is now a thing of the past.
    Thanks for your time.
    William Davis
    232 So. Washington
    New Bremen Ohio 45869
    [email protected]



MTC-00008513

From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:15pm
Subject: End Law Suit



MTC-00008514

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25033]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Anti Trust Division
    Department of Justice
    I am interested in saying YES to the recent microsoft 
settlement. I have reviewed many of the documents in this case and 
think it a good fair settlement for all parties. Our country and its 
citizens have been through enough, let it stand. The settlement as 
it stands would be good for our economy and we can all move on.
    Sincerely,
    camille mangakis



MTC-00008515

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. Do not let a few disgruntled 
staes and competitors prlong this case. For the good of the 
worldwide economy, settle the case as agreed upon with the 
government. With any decision there will always be a certain segment 
of the population that will not agree, but the good of the country 
should prevail.



MTC-00008516

From: Audrey Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please hear my voice..This is America..We have the freedom to 
Innovate..We are a proud capitalistic society. Don't take away our 
Freedom.



MTC-00008518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to have my comments in this e-mail considered when 
making the final judgement in the Microsoft settlement. If you want 
to consider damages, my goverments' actions against Microsoft have 
damaged many consumers much more than Microsoft's alleged monoply 
could ever have. The plunge the stock market took can be related, in 
many respects, to the governments lawsuit against Microsoft. 
Millions of stock holders suffered damages when stocks they held 
plunged in value because of the perceived threat to the technology 
sector of the stock market. It wasn't just Microsoft stock holders 
either, many technology stocks were affected by this lawsuit.
    Microsoft operates in one of the most competitive and dog-eat-
dog businesses ever know to man. It has to constantly be inventing 
and researching and developing new and innovative ways to help 
consumers. The fact that Windows was put in many computers was a 
plus to help standardize a new , and to many people, baffling 
industry that changed the way the world goes about its everyday 
tasks. It made the learning field much more level and less 
confusing, there by familizing many millions of people with a brand 
new industry.
    The public will not be served by prolonging this lawsuit. It 
stiffles the positive energy of this nation that can be used in much 
more productive ways.
    Please for the good of all concerned, let's get this settled and 
move on.
    Thank you,
    Linda Pershall
    PO Box 1922
    Wenatchee, WA 98807



MTC-00008519

From: Rick Fontana
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Lets get our economy moving again I support Microsoft and theie 
ability to create new jobs and opportunity through their technology.



MTC-00008520

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that the government allows Microsoft the additional four 
months to prepare their case. As a computer instructor, I think 
Microsoft has given the consumer the easiest way to use a computer 
with Windows. My students who use Windows become self-sufficient 
much more quickly than those who use other programs. The bundled 
features and products which all work the same way, make learning 
simple and quick. The legal arguments from other companies are self-
serving, ignoring the good of the consumer.
    Jane Mason



MTC-00008521

From: Tim Semple
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You know where the real monopoly resides? At the American Bar 
Association, with its legions of parasitic, bloodsucking lawyers 
ensuring that the taxpayer-funded legal system is responsive to 
their self-centered whims. Why don't you Dept. of Justice people go 
after monopolists like that piece of trash David Boie (or whatever 
his name is - i.e. the shithead who did Al Gore's dirty work in 
Florida, and who a dim bulb in the DOJ decided would be the perfect 
lead counsel to unfairly slander and malign Microsoft while being 
paid with my tax dollars). The courts have been subverted so that 
the Spences, Baileys, Cochrans etc. etc. can plunder filthy lucre 
from people who actually work for an honest living.
    But all the lawyers in the Justice Dept. are blinded by their 
allegiance to the American Bar Association (monkey see--monkey do) 
and walk in lockstep to its every whim. The ABA--now that's a 
monopoly that is screwing over the American public and someone ought 
to do something about.
    Did you know that the post office stopped issuing stamps with 
lawyers on them? No one could figure out which side they should spit 
on. Sincerely yours, someone who is disgusted with the DOJ's 
meddling in the internal affairs of that American success story 
known as Microsoft,
    Tim Semple
    North Pomfret, Vt.



MTC-00008522

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough !! It's past time to put this issue to rest. It appears 
that big money is buying AG's from some states. There can't be any 
satisfaction in the justice system being a part to their game. A 
decision was made and accepted by the majority. Majority rules, 
declare the Microsoft case closed.
    Thank You,
    Jim Worsham



MTC-00008523

From: Bill (038) Lou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ystueta Construction
    106 Patrick Henry Lane
    Madison, Alabama 35758
    January 3, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write this letter to show my support for the settlement that 
was reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. The 
antitrust dispute lasted for three years, and it is now finally 
over. America can move on to improving its economy.
    The settlement is offers a fair resolution to the settlement 
that will benefit all parties involved. The terms not only call for 
Microsoft to restructure certain aspects of their licensing and 
marketing, but call for them to disclose information about certain 
Windows interfaces. This not only allows other computer 
manufacturers access to various Windows features, but also makes it 
easier for them to install non-Microsoft software. This agreement 
can only help promote the competitive market, and can only help our 
IT Sector grow as a whole.
    Microsoft has been distracted from its mission by litigation for 
long enough. I support the settlement, and I support letting 
Microsoft get back to being the IT industry leader that it can be.
    Sincerely,
    William Ystueta



MTC-00008524

From: PEGGY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Leave Microsoft alone, Please!!!!



MTC-00008525

From: cheryllreed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a life-long resident, registered and regular voter, taxpayer, 
and business owner in the state of Ohio, one of the plaintiffs in 
this case, I strongly urge that the proposed

[[Page 25034]]

settlement be made final and that this lawsuit is brought to a long 
overdue end. I have communicated my strong objection to this suit to 
Betty Montgomery, Ohio's Attorney General, numerous times since this 
all began. In my opinion, this lawsuit was NEVER in the public 
interest. I believe the recession we are now in was directly caused 
by our government's intrusion in intellectual property rights and an 
industry for which they have no understanding.
    As a small business owner, I have watched as other businesses in 
my community have either been driven out of business completely or 
seen their businesses severely damaged by this economic situation. 
To do anything less than settle this case by making the proposed 
agreement official is nothing less than economic treason.
    Microsoft software has revolutionized the way we do business and 
established the United States as the world leader in technology. 
It's time to let them go back to doing what they do best.
    Cheryll Reed
    1231 Richland St.
    Maumee, Oh 43537



MTC-00008526

From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen and taxpayer, I would like to have you 
settle immediately with Microsoft. NO MORE LITIGATION IS 
NECESSARY...Please quit spending my hard earned tax dollars on this 
and get your priorities straight. Like: terrorists, drug smuggling 
and users who are making our country weak as they have blown their 
brains on drugs, murderers and rapists.
    This is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity. I feel Bill 
Gates is only exercising his rights.
    Sincerely,
    Bobbie Bamford
    Shelton, WA



MTC-00008527

From: Campbell McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
To: Those Concerned
    This is just my personal opinion, but I find it upsetting that 
the states and the Federal Government's Justice Division can sue a 
company for being successful. To win, to succeed, to have a good 
product, to overcome competition, and to make money is what business 
is all about. By very definition of the word ``business'' this means 
a group of people joined together to present a product or service 
for the intention of making money. Placing restrictions on Microsoft 
operations is anti business and unamerican.
    Campbell J. McCarthy
    2199 Astor St. (Apt.# 202)
    Orange Park, FL. 32073-5601
    tel. (904) 541-0060



MTC-00008528

From: Ruth Seelye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  10:51pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I have found other companies, similar to Microsoft, to be as 
competitive as they. In fact, my new computer was installed with 
Netscape, which I did not want, and it crowded out everything else.
    Finally,
    I found a way to delete it Microsoft has been innovative in a 
way which our country must encourage to stay ahead in this changing 
world. This litigation saps funds and restricts on-going research 
and development. Please, let this case be settled, so that Microsoft 
can get back to doing what they do best--creating, innovating, and 
enriching our lives.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected]



MTC-00008529

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Msdmes/Gentlemen:
    As a retired local judge I find the vandetta waged against 
Microsoft, essentially by competitors unable to effectively compete 
in the marketplace, a terribly sad commentary on contemporary 
business and social standards. Our Founding Fathers would be aghast 
at the persistent energy-consuming intrusion into a firm which while 
certainly has been ``raking it in'' has also contributed mightily to 
the welfare of consumers and our country generally. The Microsoft 
saga has not been a Teddy Roosevelt Trust-Busting replication. 
Instead it has been an incidious mischevious intrusion by a well-
meaning, democratic government into trying to poison the incentives 
for creativity.....the very thing that has made this wonderful 
country so great. Ask yourselves.....``Would not other countries be 
overjoyed to have a Microsoft in their midst?''
    I urge you, please, to terminate this foolishness practiced 
against Microsoft and direct your energies in areas that will truly 
will afford benefit to our citizens.
    Thank you.
    Robert G. Fogelson, Taylortown Road, Montville, NJ 07045 973-
334-4427
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008530

From: S.A. Hepps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:07pm
Subject: Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble. 
The American people
    Enough already! Stop the continuing greedy legal babble. The 
American people are sick and tired of this stupid lawsuit!



MTC-00008531

From: dino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:14pm
Subject: On the settlement



MTC-00008532

From: Richard H Freel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    Four years is long enough! Too long in fact!! All the suits 
against MicroSoft should be thrown out. MS has done more for the 
computer revolution and the national economy than anyone who is 
complaining about them.
    Let them get back to business!



MTC-00008533

From: Jeanette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    why can't this be over & done with so microsoft can get on with 
the business at hand i think it's gone on long enough & let 
microsoft do what it does very well 'that is create bigger & better 
programs.
    Have a great day or night !!!!!!!



MTC-00008534

From: Kelly V.B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my concern for the consumers, businesses 
and for Microsoft. I feel that it is high time for this persecution 
of Microsoft to come to a resolution. I feel that Microsoft is an 
outstanding example of what an entrepreneur can achieve in these 
United States of America. Microsoft has help to move this country 
into a wonderful new era.
    I am pleased to hear that a fair resolution is on the 
negotiation table. For the sake of the consumers and for others who 
would like to improve our way of life, allow Microsoft the freedom 
to keep pushing ahead without further fear of persecution.
    Thank you,
    Kelly Van Blokland
    1362 NW Front Avenue
    Portland, Oregon 97204



MTC-00008535

From: Herbert Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    I WISH I COULD BUILD A BETTER MOUSE TRAP. SO DOES THE 
OPPOSITION!



MTC-00008536

From: Ann Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't know what we'd do without Microsoft products.Please stop 
the litigation and leave them free to innovate. I think the 
government is making a huge mistake and the court should stop for 
several reasons, one being unemployment. Let the people get back to 
work. Mr. Gates has given millions to education and other causes. 
Why break Microsoft up?
    Sincerely,
    Annie Jackson



MTC-00008538

From: Kathleen Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get this settled with Microsoft. It is important to 
consumers and to our economy. I find it hard to believe this was 
ever about protecting the consumer. This consumer has

[[Page 25035]]

been hurt and the economy of our nation has been hurt. Microsoft 
should be applauded for it's economic growth of the American 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen E. Johnson



MTC-00008539

From: MARCENE HENDRICKSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and user of Microsoft I am satisfied with the 
settlement made with the Justice Department.
    Please do not pursue any further.



MTC-00008540

From: Anna Jeannet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:51pm
Subject: SETTLE !!!
    To Whom this May Concern,
    I personally think the WHOLE attack on Microsoft has been unfair 
and unjust. They are an excellent company, have excellent products--
--and they certainly do not force anyone to be their customers. 
After all, isn't opportunity what our country all about? Should 
excellence be allowed to be destroyed by the jealous and reduced to 
mediocrity?
    This whole ridiculous situation has gone on too long. And the 
attorneys have probably made out like bandits as usual.
    SETTLE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY-----and turn yourselves to 
important worldly issues. Further, I feel that Microsoft should be 
re-imbursed its legal fees by its attackers.
    Sincerely,
    Anna Jeannet



MTC-00008541

From: Domingues, Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The recent decisions have been fair, though I believe that it 
shouldn't have started in the first place.
    I have seen Microsoft improve the quality of the operation 
System and offering what the consumer wants. This problem with other 
companies like Sun and other companies should try and make better 
software.
    So what if Microsoft makes Internet Explorer as part of the 
operation System, at least they are offering it in the package and 
not making the user having to search for a downloadable copy of it. 
Like Netscape's version 6 browser which was outright Pathetic and 
slow, but Microsoft produced Internet explorer version 5.5 and 6 
that followed and it was great as a standard browser. With XP for 
example they offered the ability to watch DVD's, in the past you 
would have to purchase some software just to watch DVD movies. In 
the End we have to face it, it is their operation System; they 
should be able to do what they want with it, people should be 
concentrating in Improving and competing instead of whining when 
their product is already a failure.
    Other companies should take example of Intel and AMD, years ago 
everyone also thought the Intel was the evil Monopoly Empire, AMD 
and other companies also whinged, but look today, Intel is no longer 
the main Stream. What happened in this example was the AMD competed 
and also produced a superior product going against Intel's chain.
    I think that it should all end now and everyone should just move 
on and concentrate on the real problems facing the country, instead 
of Bitching on small issues. Remember that Microsoft is pumping 
Money into the American Economy, which currently almost faced a 
recession. I just hop at the end of the day everyone could just move 
on instead of whinging.
    Regards
    Tony Domingues



MTC-00008542

From: craig butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  11:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time for the federal government to step aside and allow 
one of our country's most dynamic companies of the 20th/21st century 
to get back on track and move forward. Too much time and money has 
been wasted over the past few years. I am hopeful the settlment is 
finalized.
    Thank you.
    Craig Butler
    Danville, KY



MTC-00008543

From: The Shaw's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    Please don't spend any more of my money (Tax dollars) on 
litigation aginst microsoft. Take the deal and lets get the economy 
moving again.
    Jason Shaw



MTC-00008544

From: Richard Cote
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my judgment that the whole Microsoft fiasco has gone on 
for far too long. While the proposed settlement may not be 
satisfactory to everyone, it has one distinct advantage. It will put 
an end to this ill advised litigation which I believe has played a 
large role in the downtrend in our markets, and especially in the 
technology sector. What is it about hard fought competition that 
seems to grate on certain members of the community?
    While Microsoft may be far from perfect, as I know from 
experience with all of the various iterations of Windows, it has 
opened the world of computing to the world, and always at what I 
would consider to be a reasonable price. It's time to get this 
behind us and let the world of business and industry get back on 
track. Please end this litigation and accept the proposed 
settlement. Anything less will be an invitation to a further 
deterioration of our economy, and more possible damage to Microsoft, 
one of the bulwarks of our technological superiority in the world.
    I write this as a retired lawyer and business executive who has 
never been involved with Microsoft except as a customer and stock 
holder. But then, I own more stock in Sun Microsystems, so I am not 
prejudiced in either direction, except to say that as a result of 
this ill advised adventure, I'm on the losing end of both stocks.
    Sincerely yours,
    Richard P. Cote
    2008 Calle Candela
    Fullerton, CA 92833
    714-871-3841



MTC-00008545

From: mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
    Summary: Microsoft is not the predator. It has used violence 
against no one. It is the victim. Leave the peaceful Microsoft 
Corporation alone and apply your smears and name-calling to some one 
who deserves it: those damn terrorists who brought down the WTC. 
This would truly be a historic act of justice. ***
    Here are my views on the Microsoft case: Some years ago in 1999, 
I turned on my television to witness the frightening spectacle of 
one of Janet Reno's henchman giggling like a terrorist who had just 
blown up an American embassy. The source of his pleasure-and my 
displeasure-was his apparent ``victory'' against a giant 
``predator'' that had ``hurt'' competitors and ``exploited'' 
consumers. Who was this ``predator''?
    An anarchist who tried to overthrow the Puerto Rican government? 
A ``pro-lifer'' who firebombed an abortion clinic? A ``murderer'' 
wanted in sixteen states?
    No, the so-called ``predator'' was American businessman Bill 
Gates and the Microsoft Corporation, creator of the world's best-
selling personal computer operating system: Microsoft Windows.
    Is Microsoft a ``predator'' as the Department of Justice 
insinuates? A predator is someone like Adolph Hitler who kills 
people in concentration camps, or a member of the mafia who hunts 
down a neighborhood businessman for not obeying his wishes. A 
predator is someone who *initiates* the use of physical force. 
Microsoft has pointed a gun at no one. Clearly, a far stronger case 
for predatory acts can be made against the Department of Justice--
who seeks to violate Microsoft's rights by taking control over its 
property--than for the make-believe ``predatory'' acts Microsoft is 
accused of.
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly''? Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term. Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or 
today's U.S Post Office monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market 
share by having the government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft 
earned its position in the free-market. All real monopolies are the 
result of the government giving a business a ``monopoly''--exclusive 
control of a given market by outlawing the entry of competitors. 
Free competition is not some
    Marxist, egalitarian, ``perfect'' ideal where all competitors 
end up with an equal market share of a given industry. Whether in 
sports, or in business, the whole point of competition is to beat 
your competitors-even to the point of having them going out of 
business. Bigness should not be confused

[[Page 25036]]

with monopolistic; size is not a criterion of wrongdoing; success is 
not a crime.
    Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? Innovation is the process of 
discovering a better way to do things. No private business can stop 
other companies from innovating except by out-innovating them, or by 
buying them out (in the which case the buyer would want the acquired 
company to innovate even more). The only way to halt innovation is 
by the threat of physical force, which is a legal power that only 
governments possess.
    Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its competitors? This sloppy 
metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the government has the legal power 
to twist-and even break-arms. The only ``twisting'' Microsoft 
engaged in was the legitimate practice of setting the terms of sale 
for its property. By what stretch of the imagination, does the 
Department of Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's 
refusal to license its products to vendors who do not accept its 
terms? This is not coercion because if a vendor refuses Microsoft's 
offer and walks away (and he is free to), the vendor will be no 
worse off then if he did not deal with Microsoft in the first place. 
For a real example of ``arm-twisting'' see what happens when you 
refuse to hand over half your income to the IRS this April.
    Did Microsoft ``hurt'' competitors like Netscape by giving away 
a free Internet browser with its Windows operating system (when 
Netscape wanted to charge you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's 
bundles its meat patties with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the 
bread makers. Such actions may frustrate their competitors wishes, 
but their rights are left untouched.
    Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the 
application of the political principle of individual rights to the 
economic realm of production and trade that gives rise to the rules 
of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated the 
rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether 
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not 
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
    Yet, in the name of ``protecting'' competition, it is these 
inalienable rights that the antitrust process ignores in favor of 
such subjective considerations as the ``public interest'' (which 
fails to include the interests of the millions of members of the 
public who do not side with the Department of Justice), the 
``consumer interest'' (which the Department of Justice has awarded 
itself the title of official spokesperson for), and ``relevant 
markets'' (the government defines the relevant market small enough 
so that Microsoft becomes a monopoly, even though Microsoft 
comprises less then 4% of the computer industry). Such 
``protection'' is tantamount to helping a man to see by thrusting 
burning coals into his eyes.
    By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of 
considerations, such as the ``public interest,'' the antitrust laws 
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's 
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property 
against use it against Microsoft's interests. Thanks to the 
antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily classified a business as 
a ``monopoly'', the government is given free rein to: plunder of 
vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account (through triple 
fines for so-called ``damages''); replace Bill Gates with a 
government ``overseer'' who will make the important strategic 
decisions at Microsoft; force Microsoft to advertise and distribute 
its competitor's products; compel Microsoft to give up its ``trade 
secrets'' and intellectual property to those who condemn it. From 
start to finish the entire antitrust process is no more than a 
process of sacrificing successful American businesses-such as 
Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil--on the guillotine of 
egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to quote Alan 
Greenspan, who upon a complete examination of the theory and history 
of the antitrust laws wrote that ``.the effective purpose, the 
hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the 
United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and 
efficient members of our society because they are productive and 
efficient.''
    The truth of the matter is that Microsoft is not the predator; 
Microsoft is the victim. The real predators are the bureaucrats in 
the Department of Justice when acting according to the antitrust 
laws, second-rate competitors-like Sun, Novell, and Netscape--who 
seek to profit from the government's actions (what do they think 
will happen when the government under the antitrust laws deems them 
``too successful'' in their ``relevant market''?), and the anti-
capitalist intellectuals who support them. Businessmen like Bill 
Gates are the one group of minorities that best symbolize the 
American way of life: that of a free, rational, moral society.
    Leave the peaceful Microsoft Corporation alone and apply your 
smears and name-calling to some one who deserves it: those damn 
terrorists who brought down the WTC. This would truly be a historic 
act of justice
    Regards,
    Mark Da Cunha
    Publisher
    http://www.CapitalismMagazine.com/



MTC-00008546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am amore than a little tired of the antics that have been 
going on regarding the Microsoft litigation. I doubt the suit 
brought against them has saved me a dime on software. I know it has 
cost me about $70,000 in the price of my Microsoft stock. I am 72 
yeas old and I do not need that kind of help. I have been using 
computers since the TI 44A was considered the latest deck top PC for 
the home. I have never had to buy anything I did not wish to nor 
been stopped from buying what I wanted because of Microsoft's 
marketing. I have tried other operating systems and found them 
lacking in what I wanted to do. I have since come back to Microsoft 
because for me they have a better system. Never because I was 
forced.
    I use AOL as a Internet because I have liked it. If I change it 
will be because I try something else and like it better.
    As I see it the people who brought the suit, did it for there 
own monitory gain and not for the benefit of the public consumer.
    It is about time this suit is brought to a close so that things 
can get back to normal.
    Of course the lawyers would like to drag it on for ever. That is 
how they get there pockets full.
    David J.Eason
    225 Newport Drive
    Palm Springs California
    92264



MTC-00008547

From: Susan Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't see how Microsoft can possibly be called a monopoly. 
Anyone can use any software they choose.
    Microsoft just built the best that is available. I used to use 
Netscape.....I don't any more but no one twisted my arm. I think 
this entire scheme is ridiculous and a slam for the entrepreneurial 
spirit. Why don't you go after the post office, cable company, 
garbage companies or phone companies? The post office is obviously a 
monopoly (government operated) and each of the other companies has 
their own territory in which to operate.....no one else is allowed.
    Susan Smith



MTC-00008549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed settlement in this case, I feel very 
strongly that it should go forward as is.
    The reasons that this suit was initially filed were poor from 
the onset. There was a lot of political influence exerted by the 
previous administration in bowing to some major contributors who 
just happened to be in competition with Microsoft. Now, after a more 
enlightened review by the current administration of the previous 
legal processes that took place, a settlement has been proposed and 
accepted by Microsoft DOJ. There remains, however, an intense degree 
of partisan political pressure by Attorneys General of certain 
states to try to get into Microsoft's pockets. This, in my humble 
opinion, is the true reason why those states are not agreeing with 
the settlement. I would like to go on record as stating that I think 
that Microsoft has been the single most effective driving force in 
the ``computer revolution'' of late twentieth century. It, by virtue 
of its programs and technology, has put the power of personal 
computing into the hands of the people in a simple, straightforward 
and eminently usable fashion. Microsoft products, most importantly 
Windows and Internet Explorer, have enabled the general populace to 
partake in and to become part of the greatest information flow that 
this world had ever seen.
    I have, from the very inception of the DOJ suit, felt that the 
suit was unfair, that it was ill-conceived, and that it was totally 
unnecessary. Microsoft has done nothing

[[Page 25037]]

wrong in its actions. They are a good business and have acted 
aggressively to sell, to enhance and to protect their excellent 
products. Microsoft has been successful because of those efforts and 
its products. No one has been or even now is forced to use them. I 
think that the proprietary information that has been developed by 
Microsoft for its operation systems should remain just that: 
proprietary. Those competitors who have ``suffered'' have done so 
because of the inadequacies of their competing systems and programs. 
The truth of the matter is that they need to give the consumer/PC 
user a better product if they wish to succeed. That's the basis of 
business success in this country.
    On the other hand, the greatest business foibles have occurred 
wherever and whenever the government has gotten involved in 
business, productivity and efficiency, areas in which it has no 
history of proficiency. One just needs to look at some of the 
government regulations that have been imposed upon business under 
the mistaken guise of ``helping the consumer.'' A good (and 
appropriate) example is the ``new and improved'' water-saving toilet 
promulgated and forced into use by the previous administration-----
you know, the ones that use one-third less water, but that you have 
to flush three times to have them work properly. Amazing! Al Gore 
and Ms. Browner have earned a very special place in history for that 
one.
    Let this settlement go forward as agreed and approved. Enough is 
enough. I am a consumer who has NOT been hurt in any way by 
Microsoft. As a matter of fact, I have been helped to an immense 
degree, and I personally feel that Microsoft should be honored, not 
sued.
    Edward J. Brofka
    2103 Norman Road
    Marion, IL 62959



MTC-00008550

From: swingingclub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement is just and fair
    Dear Counsel:
    I am please to hear that Microsoft, Inc. has agreed to reach a 
settlement with the US Justice Department. I do not feel it is in 
either parties interest to have protracted litigation in this anti-
trust lawsuit. As we all know full well that litigation means time 
and expense of resources for all parties involved and no one wins 
and hard feelings are the end product.
    At the beginning, and it is still my belief that Microsoft did 
not violate any anti-trust laws. Microsoft is a highly competitive 
company in its industry similar to Wal-mart. There is no law that 
prohibits a company from being competitive. When the matter is 
evaluated on the basis of economic of scales, the dynamics does 
favor Microsoft because of its unlimited intellectual resources to 
create and develop new technologies into the foreseeable future.
    Microsoft should not be hindered by other companies who do not 
have the means to compete. Further, it has been wrongfully argued 
that Microsoft has prohibited other entities from competing in the 
computer industry by anti-competitive tactics. Most of the arguments 
are based on hypothesis which do not take into consideration the 
dynamics of economics. It can be safely argued that the companies 
who object to the settlement are less competitive than Microsoft. 
Those companies do not and will not ever have the resources that 
Microsoft has obtained through its creative skills.
    Factually, each company that has opposed the settlement 
(Gateway, Inc.) is functioning on a less than favorable financial 
tread. Gateway has erroneously argued that the settlement will cause 
harm to the organization because the donation of computers to 
schools will cut into their business profits. Factually, Gateway 
financial problems started long before this proposed settlement was 
conceived.
    Someone need to review Gateway's financial sheet. In the 
financial community, Gateway has not met its profit projections of 
the last three quarters of last year. Its biggest rival is Dell 
Computer which is the reason why Gateway is having financial 
difficulty.
    The US Department of Justice should look at the economic impact 
that a lawsuit against Microsoft will have on the US economy. It 
will not be favorable. The nine or so state attorney generals that 
oppose the settlement should also take note of the fact that a 
lawsuit against Microsoft will most certainly impact the US economy 
negatively. I will argue that to oppose the proposed settlement is 
nothing less than a self-serving posture which amounts to greed. It 
appears that those states are seeking specific money compensation. 
This suit is unlike a tobacco law suits where human life was taken 
because of a defective product.
    Microsoft has agreed in principle to stop practices which would 
cause other companies harm in competition. In addition, Microsoft 
has agreed to assist other organizations in competition. The states 
that opposed the settlement have not taken into consideration the 
good will and philanthropic generosity of the Gates Foundation which 
has given millions of dollars in charitable donations. I would 
propose that in the event those states who continue to pursue the 
course of opposing the fair and just settlement of Microsoft has 
agreed to enter into with the US Justice Department should be cut 
off from any form of grants or philanthropic gifts by the Gates 
Foundation and Microsoft.
    I would suggest to the Honorable Court to accept the settlement 
agreement that the US Justice Department and Microsoft, Inc. have 
entered into on the basis that the settlement is fair and just for 
America. Protracted litigation should be avoided by any means 
necessary because it will be a waste of valuable resources.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Thomas P. Johnson, III



MTC-00008551

From: Gary Dawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let Microsoft alone. The special interest groups are 
served enough. Let Microsoft continue to give us a good product at a 
fair price. The marketplace can decide if the Microsoft is doing the 
right thing.
    GDawson



MTC-00008552

From: Paul Kessler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement, as now agreed to between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department, should be approved. Microsoft has been 
persecuted by its competitors. Microsoft's conduct has been 
beneficial to the consumer. It's products are superior to those of 
it's competitors and they are using every means at their disposal to 
hurt Microsoft.
    Paul T. Kessler, Jr.
    11651 Hidden Valley Rd.
    Carmel Valley, CA 93924



MTC-00008553

From: Roy Schweiker
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney. [email protected]. us@inet...
Date: 1/4/02  12:25am
Subject: proposed Microsoft $1 billion payment
    Gentlemen:
    I am distressed that the government is prepared to accept 
Microsoft's offer to supply $1 billion in kind to poor schools as 
partial settlement. By guaranteeing Microsoft $1 billion in business 
at whatever price it sets, you are perpetuating exactly the sort of 
monopoly you are trying to end.
    Instead, make Microsoft give the schools $1 billion in cash and 
require that they issue vendor-neutral proposals for bids, which 
would probably allow the schools to acquire double the computing 
power. Alternatively, require Microsoft to provide $1 billion in 
products valued at actual manufacturing cost, such as $6 for a pack 
of CD-ROMs and $1 for a site license. That way every school and 
every household in the country would get a free site license with 
media for Windows and Office. Maybe that is a fair settlement after 
all. Ro
    y Schweiker, Concord NH [email protected]
    CC:roy.schweiker@ juno.com@inetgw,aweber @cmp.com@inetg...



MTC-00008554

From: Lucio DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot understand why Microsoft is getting most of what it 
wanted out of this settlement. It seems as though Microsoft is 
getting off easy, since George W Bush has taken office, From reading 
the final judgement, How can this judgement be considered fair when 
Apple Computer and Netscape Communications, Inc have both been 
adversely affected by the actions of Microsoft. What corrective 
action can be made after more than 10 years of destructive 
monopolistic activity?
    I believe that consumers have been hurt by not being allowed to 
decide what browser they could use. I am affected EVERY DAY because 
I cannot use Netscape at work because my Company has `standardized` 
on IE. I have two browsers loaded on my

[[Page 25038]]

computer (Netscape and IE) at work because there are certain 
internal websites that have specifically been modified to work with 
IE only.
    What kind of standard is in IE if it has web content that allows 
a user to access a URL such as ``I:\directory\file''. This works OK 
with IE but does not work on Netscape because it IS NOT A URL by 
HTML standards approved by the Internet Engineering Task Force 
(IETF). Netscape complains about this error but since most people 
(Because they were forced to use IE) have no problem with this `URL` 
access, it is not considered a problem and people are then confused 
about what a URL is and continue to make non standard changes to web 
sites that only work with a NON-Standard IE.
    Sincerely frustrated,
    Lucio DiGiovanni



MTC-00008555

From: DMiller909@aol. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:28am
Subject: (no subject)
    During the past several years I have followed the government/
Microsoft case.The competitors of Microsoft applied their pressure 
and, in my opinion, the situation turned from legal to a political 
situation.
    The Attorney Generals, representing their respective states and 
constituents (competitors of Microsoft) have set forth the claim 
that the consumer has been hurt by the activities of Microsoft. Yet, 
I, as a consumer, would love to know what damage has been caused to 
me so that I would be able to compare it to the financial damage 
caused by the shadows this case has cast over the financial market 
The AG's pursue their ultimate desire which, in my opinion, would 
ultimately satisfy the companies they have in their respective 
States while the investors and the market continue being the victim. 
Moreover, the economy of our nation has diminished in proportion to 
the overall effect that the market has suffered.
    My wife and I have made investments in Microsoft, Aol, Sun, 
Cisco etc.,hoping to build a future financial support for our Great-
grand-children when it would be needed for their college education. 
There is no doubt in my mind that numerous other parents and grand-
parents have invested with the same thought in mind. And, as long as 
the uncertainty overshadows the market the multitude of persons 
invested in the technology stocks will continue suffering the 
financial loss that the case continues to create by causing ongoing 
legal demands , by the AG's ,that surpass the final determination of 
the federal government. The federal government and several States 
have reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft. Why therefor 
should the marketplace and the consumers be held hostage to the will 
of competitors and the remaining attorney generals who insist upon 
additional legal demands. Neither the consumers nor the overall 
economy needs further uncertainty It is time to put this matter to 
rest.
    Very truly yours,
    Daniel Miller



MTC-00008556

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    Leave Mr. Gates and his company alone. He has committed no 
crime; he deserves our praise and gratitude for his work. He has a 
moral right to his work and his money. Antitrust laws are immoral 
and design to crush the creative and honest. Cease your attacks on 
him and his company.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Shelton
    Glendale, CA



MTC-00008557

From: Jack Carroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:34 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Public Comment by John A. Carroll
    This comment is on the proposed settlement in U.S. vs. 
Microsoft, and on the Remedial
    Proposals by State of New York et al vs. Microsoft.
    THE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE INTEREST My interest in the outcome of 
this case is a consequence of my participation in the open source 
software community. I'm a long-time user and advocate of the Linux/
GNU family of operating systems and related open source 
applications; also, I'm a stockholder in Red Hat, Inc., a commercial 
distributor of open source software. Antitrust legislation and 
litigation concerns not only the direct parties in the case, but the 
public interest as well. Obviously, the interests of the open source 
community form a subset of the public interest, because that 
community is part of the public. However, open source software and 
its development are related to the interests of the general public 
in a much closer way. Open source programming is fundamentally about 
freedom. This body of software is developed largely by end users, 
for the benefit of end users. Most open source projects encourage 
anyone to contribute improvements. Also, anyone is at liberty to 
start a new project and build on the existing body of open software. 
The most common licenses encourage wide distribution of the fruits 
of this open-ended collaboration. The nature of the open source 
community makes it a powerful force against monopolism. It is 
possibly the only body today able to offer the public serious 
alternatives to Microsoft operating systems and office productivity 
applications, and thus effectively counteract Microsoft's 
unrelenting campaign to preserve and extend its monopoly. In certain 
parts of the world a growing user base has already begun to abandon 
Microsoft products in favor of open source replacements. Because of 
the diversity of this community, it can have no single 
representative able to speak for all. It is not a business, though 
it includes businesses. It's not a private club, though it includes 
a great number of local users' groups. Its most productive 
components, the ``projects'', usually don't have even that amount of 
organization; they're geographically dispersed teams of volunteer 
programmers sharing source code over the internet, who prefer to 
give their attention to the programs they have a need for, rather 
than and unwanted apparatus of officers and treasuries. University 
research programs and undergraduate programming classes are 
involved, and many of the customs and practices derive from the open 
traditions of academic research. A great deal has been accomplished 
by unaffiliated individuals. Thus, different members of this 
community will contribute different perspectives to this public 
issue. DEFECTS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND REMEDIAL PROPOSALS The 
remedies in the proposed settlement are written around ``ISVs, IHVs, 
IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs''--all business entities (section I). 
Developers and suppliers of open source software are neither 
mentioned nor contemplated. Indeed, section J paragraph 2 speaks of 
``reasonable business needs'' and ``authenticity and viability of 
its business''.
    ``ISV'' is counter-intuitively defined to be a supplier of a 
software product that runs on a Windows Operating System product -
thereby excluding a supplier of a software product that runs on a 
non-Microsoft operating system, or a supplier of a non-Microsoft 
operating system. The information to be disclosed to non-Microsoft 
entities includes APIs, protocols, and documentation for middleware 
(section D). It does not include user data file formats used by 
applications. The language of section I could reasonably be 
interpreted to assert intellectual property rights to any 
information which is not specifically required to be disclosed; that 
could be used to restrict the analysis and documentation by 
outsiders of an application's external behavior, or the use of 
information they have already compiled by behavioral analysis. That 
would have profound implications; in effect, it would manipulate the 
Court into restoring and strengthening an application monopoly which 
the open source community has already broken. These are not 
accidental oversights. These provisions are carefully crafted to 
exclude open source software developers from access to the technical 
information necessary to make their creations interoperable with 
Microsoft systems and application software.
    Several open source operating systems have fully demonstrated 
their readiness for the most demanding commercial service. Open 
source office productivity applications have matured to a point 
where their relative merits compared to Microsoft equivalents are as 
much a matter of opinion and taste as objective fact. Star Office / 
Open Office, in particular, has achieved a high degree of 
interoperability with Microsoft Office file formats.
    Now the struggle between Microsoft and the open source community 
is converging on offering end users the freedom to migrate their 
existing document and data files from proprietary Microsoft formats 
to next-generation open-standard replacements. This migration 
process relies heavily on ``filters'', which are utility programs 
that convert one file format to another. Historically, open source 
projects have analyzed sample document files to deduce their 
formatting, so that filters can be written. Once these filters 
exist, end users can migrate to a different

[[Page 25039]]

application package at will without losing their investment in their 
data. Equally, users of non-Microsoft applications can put their 
work into formats that Microsoft applications can read and edit. 
Microsoft's most important weapon to obstruct end-user defection and 
prevent the emergence of a level playing field is the obscurity of 
the file formats used by its office applications. If they can 
continually change their file formats to break compatibility, then 
deny access to the revised format information by a combination of 
secrecy and legal measures, they can erect high barriers against 
migration to non-Microsoft applications, or exchanging document 
files with users of non-Microsoft applications and operating 
systems. This is a powerful anticompetitive tactic.
    Why agree to share information with certain businesses, but not 
with open source developers? Because Microsoft has a long history of 
success in buying out or smothering commercial suppliers of any 
product that endangers its monopoly position--it has every reason to 
be confident of its ability to continue the same proven strategy. 
Those methods don't work against open source developers. These 
developers aren't carrying the weight of a business, so they don't 
need revenue--therefore there's no way to cut off their resources. 
Legal harassment is impractical, because they're scattered through 
hundreds of jurisdictions with radically different legal systems, 
some of which are promoting open source software as a matter of 
national security policy. Their code is released under licenses that 
make monopolization virtually impossible. Their distribution costs 
are negligible. Their archives are duplicated and backed up all 
around the world. And because anybody with a computer and a modem 
can participate at will, their numbers, productivity, and code 
quality are far beyond any business's ability to match.
    Section B applies only to ``Covered OEMs'', which are defined to 
be only the 20 largest-volume OEMs. This leaves Microsoft 
considerable room to impose discriminatory terms and rates on all 
its other customers, and thus penalize any behavior it wants to 
discourage. Smaller OEMs are the ones most likely to respond to end 
users' requirements and preferences -such as offering customers a 
choice of Microsoft, non-Microsoft, dual-boot, or no pre-installed 
software. Section C says nothing about adjusting royalties when 
Microsoft middleware is replaced by non-Microsoft middleware, or 
simply deleted.
    New York et al's Remedial Proposals offer important 
improvements. Their section B paragraph 2-ii contains the important 
phrase ``actual volume of total shipments of the licensed 
products'', meaning that Microsoft is paid only for Microsoft 
products shipped, and not the total number of computers shipped by 
the OEM including those on which Microsoft products are not 
installed. This is a critical issue to the open source community, 
since it removes an economic barrier to offering a choice of 
software to the OEM's customers--and to offering machines without 
software to those who prefer to do their own installations or boot 
from the local network. They do not, however, propose to provide 
open source developers with the same external interface information 
as business entities, nor do they include application file formats 
among the information to be disclosed except indirectly by 
interpretation of a definition (section C paragraph 4). Also, in 
their provisions for interoperability, they discuss middleware but 
not applications; this effectively protects only suppliers of 
software that runs on Microsoft operating systems.
    They do propose to force Microsoft to open-source Internet 
Explorer. Other open source users and developers may disagree with 
me about this, but I don't believe that would be useful at this late 
date. Open source versions of Netscape and its successor Mozilla are 
already the dominant browsers on open source operating systems. 
Nearly four years of work have been invested in bringing the 
original commercial source code up to the standards of open source 
projects, so that substantive progress can now be made. Most of the 
commercially-produced Netscape code had to be discarded and 
rewritten from scratch. It's unlikely that a development team could 
be assembled that would be willing to undertake similar remedial 
work on Internet Explorer. In general, open source developers would 
have little interest in looking at Microsoft source code. It's the 
external behavior that's important for interoperability, not the 
internal design.
    They propose to make the porting of Microsoft Office to some 
non-Microsoft operating systems mandatory. This is interesting, in 
that it could become a stepping stone for Microsoft users to abandon 
Windows first and Office later, rather than attempting both changes 
at once. Several years ago most of the open source community would 
have been interested in porting Office, but the work on replacements 
is far advanced now. It's of interest that the latest version of the 
only non-Microsoft OS which runs Office now is Mac-OS X, which is 
actually a commercial Unix operating system underneath the Macintosh 
user interface. Thus, this version of Office uses Unix APIs. Most 
non-Microsoft operating systems with any significant popularity 
today are derived from Unix (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, 
Linux, GNU Hurd, SCO Unix); thus, it would be relatively easy to 
write the Mac-OS source code according to recognized Unix 
portability standards, so that it would compile on any Unix 
platform. However, the language of the proposal is so vague on what 
the target operating systems would be, that Microsoft could choose 
BeOS, OS/2, and Plan 9, thus frustrating the intent.
    Section L of the Remedial Proposals is of great importance to 
open source software. Open source software achieves much of the 
interoperability among its components and applications by adherence 
to published formal standards. Interoperability between Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft systems and applications is essential to creating 
a level playing field. Thus, requiring Microsoft to be truthful in 
its claims to standards compliance promotes competition and user 
choice. It is also important that definitions of ``standard'' and 
``de facto standard'' are provided, since Microsoft has a history of 
misusing these terms for deceptive marketing purposes.
    PROPOSED REMEDIES
    1. In section D, ``shall disclose to...'' should be changed to 
``shall publish''. This would place all software developers on an 
equal footing, and make crucial interoperability information 
available to open-source developers working without the financial 
support of a business. In the same section ``APIs and related 
Documentation'' should read ``APIs, file formats, communication 
protocols, and related Documentation''; and ``or Microsoft 
applications to store and communicate user data'' should added 
following ``Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windoww 
Operating Systems Product''. This makes explicit the requirement to 
publish application file formats and network protocols. From the 
view-point of the open source community, enforcing these two 
requirements is the central issue of the whole case, and the key to 
breaking the monopoly once and for all. The requirement to disclose 
application file formats is implied in the Remedial Proposals' 
definition of ``API'', but leaving it less than airtight invites 
tactical litigation and delay. The burden of any such litigation 
would probably fall on the State Attorneys-General, because nobody 
in the open source community has the financial resources to take on 
Microsoft in court.
    2. The Remedial Proposals forbid Microsoft from using agreements 
or retaliation to discourage OEMs from installing non-Microsoft 
operating systems alongside Windows and allowing the user to control 
which system is booted. Microsoft should also be prohibited from 
taking technical measures against multi-booting. It wouldn't be 
difficult to modify Windows to malfunction in the presence of a non-
Microsoft boot loader, intentionally corrupt or overwrite the boot 
loader, or fail after partition re-sizing.
    REFERENCES
    On the history and nature of open source software: ``The 
Cathedral and the Bazaar'' by Eric S. Raymond, http://
www.tuxedo.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar On the licensing of 
free and open source software: the General Public License (``GPL'') 
by Richard M. Stallman, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/
licenses..html#TOCGPL On the place of business within the open 
source community, ``Under the Radar'' by Robert Young and Wendy 
Rohm, http://www.redhat.com/radar.html
    John A. Carroll
    77 Musket Dr.
    Nashua, N.H. 03062-1442



MTC-00008558

From: Margaret Baecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 120
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement agreement 
with Microsoft that would provide technology funds, computers

[[Page 25040]]

and software to schools in low-income communities. The State of 
Wisconsin would benefit from the technology funds. Our state falls 
below the national average in the percentage of 4th-8th grade 
students in schools that have computers available in all classrooms. 
In addition, about one half of Wisconsin Education Association 
Council members feel that they have adequate training to operate 
computers and software in their schools. Less than half of these 
teachers feel that they get technology training, provided by their 
schools, to integrate technology into curriculum. The additional 
funding for teacher training in technology would be beneficial for 
smaller school districts, such as mine, which are feeling the 
effects of decreased state funding to meet operating expenses. In 
many cases, there is only limited revenue to provide technology 
training. Needless to say, computer and telecommunication 
technologies are important educational tools in our schools. 
Computer literacy is an educational goal in our schools, providing 
students with technology skills that are needed to meet the learning 
requirements for future jobs. No student or teacher should be denied 
the opportunity to become computer-literate. The proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is most positive, and certainly would benefit students, 
teachers, and schools that need technology funding the most.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Baecker
    Independence Public School
    23786 Indee Blvd.
    Independence, WI 54747



MTC-00008559

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies, Gentlemen:
    I am writing to support the settlement of the Microsoft case as 
it stands today. While I cannot even agree with the pursuit of the 
case in the first case, regardless, it has occurred. First and 
foremost, Microsoft is not a monopoly.
    Microsoft has created the ability for the average person to use 
the personal computer. Prior to Microsoft's comprehensive programs 
for work, together with their operating systems, the use of the 
personal computer was a perilous and cumbersome time.
    I have been a user of the personal computer from the early 
1980's. At that time, with DOS as the standard, loading a new 
program was an arduous task not to mention the ``risk'' you had in 
merely turning off your computer incorrectly. Missteps in either of 
these operations could have easily rendered your PC hopelessly 
``crashed''. At that time, an expensive ``consultant'' was the only 
resolution to recovery of your PC tool.
    Microsoft changed that through its integrated systems. Apple did 
not do it. Oracle did not do it. IBM did not do it. Microsoft did 
it. There system is not perfect. There ``capture'' of the market is 
not perfect. However, they have done nothing that any other 
visionary company could not have done. This witch hunt of a legal 
proceeding is an atrocity and a fierce challenge to the way America 
has become what it is--the place where innovation is rewarded, and a 
better mousetrap universally purchased and used by the average 
citizen. The expert mouse catcher, such as my cat George, will never 
be interested in the tool that is available to us average users.
    Finish this proceeding at the earliest time. Settle this case 
now. Let Microsoft and the American inventor and visionary proceed 
with the next great idea that will fuel the American and world 
economy to new and greater heights.
    Thank you.
    James E. Puckett
    707 Alondra NW
    Albuquerque, NM 87114
    [email protected]
    505 897 1040



MTC-00008560

From: Alan Grose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement that has been reached is fair and 
equitable and should be appoved.



MTC-00008561

From: Robert H. Fleck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen.....
    Please settle with Microsoft. The proposed settlement is fair. 
This whole case has been going on for far too long. The industry has 
changed so much since the case was brought to trial that it is no 
longer important.
    Settle and be done with it.....



MTC-00008562

From: Susan Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:59am
Subject: settlement
    I am glad the suits were filed. Microsoft was getting out of 
line. They should not be allowed to dictate how other companies run 
their business. I feel the settlement was enough to ask Microsoft to 
pay, and that unless they get way out of line again, they should be 
left to do their thing, without further penalty. Microsoft is very 
important to the US economy, and is trying to be a better corporate 
citizen, as I see it. I believe they have ``learned their lesson''. 
Their products are truly getting better, and I buy them happily now, 
not begrudgingly, like I did in the past, because there was no 
choice.



MTC-00008563

From: Evangeline Burtch-Farrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Will You PLEASE leave Microsoft alone to do what it does best 
(innovate and create for all of us) and move on to some REAL issues 
of injustice. Enough already.
    E. Burtch-Farrell



MTC-00008564

From: N. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case, as soon as possible. It is an 
ugly remnant of the last (corrupt) DoJ and one that need not 
continue. The states who oppose it need to be overruled. There is no 
value to the market, to the economy or to Microsoft's erstwhile 
competitors in continuing. Microsoft's so-called competitors (and 
the real impetus behind this suit) will fail no matter how many 
advantages they are given. Don't use anti-trust law to reward 
inferior companies with overpriced products that the consumer has 
long ago rejected, of their own accord.
    Innovation is alive and well in this industry. Open Source 
projects, IBM, Apple, Netscape all are still here and they prosper. 
Microsoft never stifled innovation, it stopped inferior overpriced 
companies (Like SUNW) from preying on less sophisticated consumers. 
How? By giving them *choice. End the insanity now.



MTC-00008565

From: Dave Steele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the Tunney Act, and resulting Microsoft 
Settlement, should be completed as soon as possible. It has always 
been my view that Microsoft has been persecuted for the heinous 
crime of being ahead of it's time--nothing more. Their ability to 
outthink and move faster than the competition, and the resulting 
financial gains, are all they're guilty of. Microsoft has generously 
agreed to settle, so let's settle and be done with this dirty 
business.
    Dave Steele
    P.O. Box 103
    Tryon, OK 74875
    918 374-2682



MTC-00008566

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:21am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    COMPANIES THAT STRIVE TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPLYING A 
PRODUCT THAT PEOPLE WANT SHOULD BE REWARDED AND NOT DRAGGED THROUGH 
COURT BECAUSE THE COMPETITION CANNOT KEEP UP.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008567

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/4/02  1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the lawsuits against MSFT. Everyone benefits from the 
great software innovations made at low cost to the consumer. All 
great businesses have high barriers to entry by competition... that 
is good not bad.



MTC-00008568

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All charges against Microsoft should be dropped. They have 
provided goods and

[[Page 25041]]

services which consumers have voluntarily purchased. No monopoly can 
exist in a voluntary, free market.
    Don McKee
    3165 Sierra Dust Court
    Sparks, NV. 89436



MTC-00008569

From: Bill Lesnjak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Friends,
    The proposed settlement is appropriate, fair, and beneficial to 
all concerned, particularly to the American public of which I write 
as a member of.
    Microsoft's contributions to our society have dwarfed many of 
others; please, let's settle this matter and go on to the future!
    Will Lesnjak,
    S-4067 Chicken Hollow Rd.,
    Hillsboro,WI 54634
    [email protected]



MTC-00008570

From: Marc Alexander Toppel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Reader,
    I do not know who is reading this, but I hope you to be a 
rational, freedom loving person--someone who's main goal in life is 
too retain justice in a world that has become devoid of it. It is 
with this said that I must describe the reasons why the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case is nothing but wrong for various reasons.
    I know the main purpose of antitrust laws. They are pragmatic at 
best. They hope to make things better for the whole society. 
However, we live in a country that was founded on principles of 
justice, blind of how it might affect others. If habeus corpus was 
stricken from our constitution, I'm sure the judicial system would 
be alot more streamlined, but would it be just? If we took away 
people's inborn right to speek freely, the government would no 
longer have to deal with opposing viewpoints and more things could 
be accomplished, but is it right? A dictator could come in and 
implement a system with which every aspect of our lives were managed 
for the good of society, yet dosen't that vanquish our right to make 
our own decisions in life, bad or good? For everything that you do, 
think not of what the practical implications may be, please think of 
what is right.
    With that knowledge in mind, I must proclaim to you that anti-
trust actions fall short of practical. I myself do not have the 
economics no-how to explain this to you, but I have come across 
countless essays documenting the benefits of a laissez-faire world. 
I will leave such things to the more qualified experts. I do, 
however, stand with the faculties to defend Microsoft morally. They 
created their products. Consumers decided they liked them. Companies 
began to recognize this so THEY DECIDED to enter contracts with 
Microsoft to use their products. Competitors volunteered to compete 
against Microsoft, yet some failed either because they created 
inferior products or they lacked the long term planning necessary to 
establish brand recognition and relability. If you'll notice, 
everything here was done VOLUNTARILY. No one forced anyone to do 
anything. Customers were free to buy or not buy products. Companies 
were free to sign or not sign contracts. Competitiors were free to 
create better or worse products.
    Do not mess up this free society and force Microsoft to adhere 
to your beliefs, for if you do, we become one step closer to a 
totalitarian regime. However, If you drop the case and subsequently 
remove antitrust laws from the books, we stay that much closer to 
the place that our fore fathers envisioned so long ago.
    Thank you for your time,
    Marc Toppel, age 18
    [email protected]
    936-441-6575
    10 Baron's Place
    Conroe, Texas 77304



MTC-00008571

From: Orrilla Blanpied
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs, we wish to preserve the rights of Microsoft to innovate, 
continue research and development and protect their rights to the 
development of their original ideas.
    Microsoft has contributed revolutionary technology for the huge 
growth and developemnt of our country !! Protect it !!
    O.Blanpied [email protected]



MTC-00008572

From: Dick (038) Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe this has gone on long enough and most of the lawyers 
can retire now with this prolonged lawsuit. It is my opinion that 
the lawsuit be settled once and for all and let the innovative 
spirit of this product continue. Our economy in the pacific 
northwest needs this company and the jobs they provide and this 
country needs more Bill Gates and less lawsuits that have tied up 
this country long enough.
    Beverly Davidson, Taxpayer.



MTC-00008573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I fully support the settlement as reached and believe it to be 
in everyone's best interests, as both a stockholder and a user of 
microsoft products.
    Dr. Judi Bloom Hauswirth and Dennis Hauswirth



MTC-00008574

From: Joe Testerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:20 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement offer proposed in the DOJ v. Microsoft case is 
more than reasonable and this litigation should finally be brought 
to a conclusion. I am very concerned that special interest groups 
continue their agenda of pushing for the break-up of one of 
America's largest companies. I find this type of agenda unacceptable 
and way beyond reason.
    Please accept the current settlement proposal and put a stop to 
this long overrun issue. It's time for America to get back to 
business and to continue our focus of competing in the new global 
economy. Thank you for your time and courtesy in this regard.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Testerman, II
    13208 Myford Road #343
    Tustin, CA 92782
    (714) 832-5851



MTC-00008575

From: Sophie Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement has now been decided and must be 
allowed to go forward.
    The States, especially California, which have chosen to proceed 
with their suits are just grandstanding. The money they propose to 
use in this pursuit could be better used to help house and feed the 
homeless, provide better mental health services, repair roads, etc., 
rather than being thrown down a rat hole.
    It is time that our public officials stop their waste of our 
money--give up the vendetta against Microsoft--and be prepared to be 
accountable!
    S. Fox



MTC-00008576

From: Halle Doucoupolis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:31am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This is to let you DOJ folks know that as one of the general 
public I think your behavior towards microsoft is just shameful. The 
great american dream has absolutely no meaning anymore if you people 
keep this farce of a lawsuit going. Where in the world does it say a 
person can't realize their dream, become the richest person in the 
whole wide world and still be happy? What makes you people think 
that you are right by trying to tell this person he can't keep the 
secrets of his success SECRET? That he HAS to remake HIS company to 
suit someone else just because that other company wants to dig 
around in his company business. It's not fair, right or American. If 
this is the way you people treat success it's no wonder the majority 
of the third world hates our guts. It's no wonder the little guy 
(like me) can never get ahead. After all what do we have to look 
forward to?
    Maryalice Anderson, A.A.S,; paralegal; LPN
    Halle Doucopolis,A.A.S.; paralegal; LPN
    Amanda Gates
    Ameenah Rasheed
    DBA:
    4Black Women With Voices/Point Inc.



MTC-00008577

From: (u)nasturtium
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,

[[Page 25042]]

    I strongly believe that it would not be in the public interest 
to pursue the current anti trust case against Microsoft Corporation 
any further, but rather accept the Revised Final Judgement (dated 
6th November 2001). I believe it is a waste of public funds, 
especially in light of the September 11 tragedy, to spend more on 
this already tough yet fair judgement.
    The Revised Final Judgement, Section IVa, 2a states ``Access 
during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code, 
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other 
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of 
Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters 
contained in this Final Judgment.'' These powers will inevitably be 
misused in ways to benefit competitors eg disclosure of source code 
of Windows Platform software, product direction etc. I dutifully 
suggest this clause be removed in the public interest. Section III, 
``Prohibited Conduct'', extensively covers actions Microsoft may not 
take against OEMs (defined as ``an original equipment manufacturer 
of Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows Operating 
System Product''). This, I believe is an unnecessary and unfair 
power. OEM software is sold at a lower price to OEMs, and ultimately 
consumers. OEM software is released at the discretion of Microsoft 
(in line with academic and other subsidised versions) and Microsoft 
should be able to choose it's condition of sale, as it will be of 
economic benefit to consumers. Therefore, it is clear that Microsoft 
is already bound sufficiently and further actions will result in 
negative effects for purchasers of OEM software.
    Thankyou for your time and consideration.
    Please direct any comments to [email protected]



MTC-00008578

From: Vincent Avona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am pleased to see that a fair settlement has been reached 
between the Federal and State governments. I trust we will no longer 
have to continue waste our tax money and government time on further 
litigation. It should have never started to begin with. Good luck 
Microsoft. ``Let's Roll''
    PS How about putting on the market more software compatible with 
Mac OS!



MTC-00008579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. The government has spent millions of taxpayer's 
money on a ridiculous case against Microsoft and caused the company 
to spend millions more to defend, which ultimately will cost the 
consumer in higher prices to cover this litigation cost! Somehow, 
over the years, the prices of computers have come down due to 
competition and are now affordable by almost everyone. I don't see 
how any consumer is being hurt.
    Stop this silly witch hunt which is simply costing all of us in 
the long run. Consumers are actually being harmed more by the cost 
of the litigation than by anything done by Microsoft. I believe the 
government is stifling progress. It is time to stop.
    Morton L. Efron



MTC-00008580

From: E.J. Eiteljorge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I'd like to take just a moment to express my opinion on the 
Microsoft persecution. I absolutely, 100%, completely, thoroughly 
believe that the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft is totally responsible 
for the ``tech stock meltdown'' of the last roughly two years. The 
amount of wealth lost by the average American investor, of which I 
am one, dwarfs even that of Mr Gates, the intended target.
    As such, I believe that a hasty settlement coupled with a 
sincere apology directed to Microsoft, its stockholders and to the 
average American investor is certainly in order.
    Terrance J. Eiteljorge
    Heidelberg Hospital
    CMR 442, Box 990
    APO AE 09042



MTC-00008581

From: David Winarsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This lawsuit against a great American company is ridiculous. The 
first lawsuit against the Bells did have merit, but in the end the 
gov broke up the bells and now you have bad service.
    I work for a Major retailer in the U.S. and sell both Microsoft 
products and product from their competition, and I have to say that 
the Microsoft Corp. goes all out and improves peoples lives, by 
making their technology easy and affordable to use.
    These lawsuits need to cease and we, as a nation need to come 
together and pull this nation together.
    Thank you,
    David Winarsky
    [email protected]
    Boca Raton, Florida



MTC-00008582

From: Steve S. Scherping
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing you because I am extremely concerned about the 
current state of the settlement concerning the Federal Government1s 
case against Microsoft1s antitrust practices. I feel that harsher 
penalties should take place. Take as an example, the recent offering 
by Microsoft as a settlement for the private antitrust cases brought 
against them. Not only do I believe this offer allows them to 
continue their monopoly since they will be imposing more of the 
software, operating systems, and hardware onto users, it also is 
quite meager since the potential value is $1.1 billion, when they 
readily have $36 is readily available capital. In this case, being a 
monopoly, Microsoft also controls the value of its products so again 
it is able to shorthand those involved in the settlement. I 
understand that this does not directly relate to your case, but it 
is deeply troubling that a company that is supposed to be punished, 
in the end will probably come out the winner again. I am not a rogue 
citizen that has a vendetta against Microsoft. Rather, I am an 
experienced system administrator that utilizes Microsoft products on 
a daily basis. In a university setting we are forced into pricing 
schemes and meager product offerings from Microsoft since our 
students are not capable of using other offerings since they 
consistently use proprietary technology and also force developers 
and manufacturers into sole platform support scenarios. Microsoft 
continues to test its corporate boundaries by attempting to force 
users into using their products. They also continue to alter known 
standards into their own proprietary technology. Please continue 
your efforts to halt the illegal business practices of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Steve S. Scherping
    Steve S. Scherping
    Business: U of MN
    Communications Technician
    CLA Language Center
    51 Folwell Hall
    9 Pleasant St SE
    Minneapolis, MN 55455
    Ph. 612-626-0013
    Gen. Ph. 612-624-6811
    Email: [email protected]
    Home: 810 Thornton St. SE, Apt. 1004
    Minneapolis, MN 55414
    [email protected]
    http://umn.edu/home/scher037
    http://www.ssstech.net
    Steve's PGP Public Key may be found at
    http://www.umn.edu/lookup?SET--INSTITUTION= 
UMNTC&UID=scher037&show--pgp=1



MTC-00008583

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    The Federal Government and nine states along with Microsoft 
Corporation have agreed to terms of a settlement. Shouldn't we honor 
that? With the current turmoil in our country, let us ask, ``What 
serves our nation best, both socially and economically?'' It seems 
to me that upholding the proposed and agreed upon settlement is in 
the best interest of our country and people. What is really to be 
gained by dragging this case on for months or years. So if you value 
any input from thoughts of an ordinary citizen of our country, 
``Let's move on!'' Nine states and The Department of Justice and 
Microsoft have agreed to this proposed settlement. As a teacher, our 
students know that in a democracy, the majority of votes makes the 
decision. Aren't we still going by those rules? Let's move on!
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter,
    Gary Fine

[[Page 25043]]



MTC-00008584

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    3056 Rue D'Orleans
    Apartment #138
    San Diego, California 92110
    January 2, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for the 
settlement that you and your colleagues at the Department of Justice 
have worked so hard to negotiate in the Microsoft antitrust dispute.
    The settlement is good for the technology industry and good for 
the economy, both of which have taken a serious beating as a result 
of this unfortunate three-year long legal battle between the two 
parties. Anytime a settlement is reached, and extremely costly and 
distracting litigation can be avoided, it is a good thing.
    It seems that politics is the motivating factor behind this case 
and that Microsoft's adversaries will stop at nothing to derail and 
destroy Microsoft. These groups and individuals do not seem to 
realize or care that they are hurting the entire U.S. economy in the 
process.
    The settlement ends Microsoft's status as a ``monopoly''. Since 
this was the goal of the government in the first place and it has 
clearly been met, Microsoft should be left alone and allowed to move 
forward. It is time that our premier software company gets back to 
innovating rather than litigating. Thank you for the work that you 
have done on this settlement and for ensuring that no further legal 
action will be taken against this American company.
    Sincerely,
    Judy Ames



MTC-00008585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MICROSOFT [email protected],
    The government should be more informed about the whole Microsoft 
spectrum and not let politics interfere with any decisions it makes 
to improve the existence of Microsoft in the entire community of the 
computer world. Microsoft has a wonderful product in all the 
versions of Windows and other products in provides to it's customers 
but there is definitely a cloud of greed hovering over the company's 
operation. One would think that the sales of their products would 
produce enough revenue that the tech support would be provided to 
it's clientele at no charge as many other very successful companies 
do. Actually for Microsoft to charge for tech support could be 
interpreted as monopolistic. Once the user goes into Microsoft 
products it's very difficult to drop Windows and seek a replacement 
elsewhere.
    The exit option is not readily provided to leave a program 
whenever one wants to. Then there is all the subliminal advertising 
that is annoying. The criticism could go on and on but there 
definitely should be some oversight by some honest, fully 
knowledgeable and not political authority to give guidance to all 
computer industry related companies.
    Not tell a man how to run his company but when you create so 
many billionaires off the backs of your customers who actually 
support you with their sweat and blood is unconscionable. The 
revenue is not apportioned properly in Microsoft so the blame is at 
the top, the authority of the company. It is my hope as a long time 
Microsoft user that the above remarks be seriously taken when it 
comes time to finalize the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Charles West
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008586

From: Dorothy G Randrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Please close this case, as a settlement has been 
agreed upon. It is my strong desire to have Microsoft proceed with 
the great work they have begun in the past few years.
    Hoping for your cooperation, Sincerely, Dorothy G. Randrup 3728 
E. Balch Ave. Fresno, CA 93702-2804



MTC-00008587

From: Steve Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:05am
Subject: gov. bogus lawsuit
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    The justice dept. had no business trying to corner the Microsoft 
Corp. in an illegal, totally bogus, politically motivated class 
action lawsuit. Because Bill Gates has more brains than any of his 
competitors is certainly no reason for his competitors to stage a 
legal frenzy against him. This lawsuit shows the ignorance (and 
jealousy) of many democratic politicians and Clinton. Heres the best 
advice you're going to get from the AMERICAN PEOPLE : Drop the 
lawsuit, apologize to Bill Gates, pay him back for all expenses and 
then, GROW UP.
    Stephen R. Glaze
    Box 1196, Clearlake Oaks, Ca. 95423



MTC-00008588

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/4/02  4:25am
Subject: USPS' Heidi Game
    NBC preempted an Oakland Raiders / NY Jets game years ago during 
a close contest for the network televised family classic, Heidi. The 
sports world has never quite forgiven NBC for this gaffe, reminding 
the football fans of the network's ``gatekeeper'' decision at the 
time. Heidi French, Wells Fargo's Orange County based HR manager 
hired me and was responsible for my work assignments during my 
career at Wells Fargo.
    Several times I attempted to relocate back to the Bay Area or 
Los Angeles with Wells Fargo, due to the continuing family attacks 
and corporate hazings / assaults in Irvine. I was constantly denied 
a transfer, due to political and Norwest Financial / Wells Fargo 
merger consolidations, and the fact that Wells Fargo wanted all of 
my family's money and one of their selections as my ``mate''.
    Apparently, the written request for my postal delivery hold at 
the Aliso Viejo / Laguna Niguel, California Post Office is once 
again creatively ignored. I have received three pieces of mail today 
after repeated requests for postal service hold, due to mail 
tampering. My mail was delivered to my home for two weeks after my 
written request was presented to the Laguna Niguel Post Office after 
I discovered mail tampering with my State Of California checks. I 
time the check delivery through California's automated system that 
details the date the check was mailed to me.
    For one week, my mail was held for pickup at the Aliso Viejo 
Postal Center (a carrier's processing facility and not a full 
service post office). After one week, my mail delivery was resumed 
without my permission, along with other family mail to 62 Trofello 
in Aliso Viejo, CA.
    On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, I contacted a carrier supervisor 
at the AV Postal Center who found the California check and held it 
for my pickup later in the day. The supervisor confirmed my request 
for mail hold yesterday. Today, 01/03/02, I received three pieces of 
red / pink color coded mail ... the first, a pink envelope from 
Geico insurance services, the second, an unsolicited Seasons 
Greetings from an unknown Japanese company named Strawberry 
Corporation that went public in Japan in October 2001, and an 
unsolicited red / white colored promotion for Homes And Gardens 
Magazines courtesy of Spiegel Corporation.
    Obviously someone is spending big bucks to pay off government 
workers and others during the big money struggles of the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust trial and related royalty issues I have detailed in 
previous memos. The
    USPS can hold my mail just like anyone else! Several additional 
PAC comics yesterday and today detail the conspiracies. The 
``Crankshaft'' comic spins around a fictional Ohio family and a 
school bus driving ``grandfather' character, Crankshaft, a parody on 
my father. In the late 1960s my father spearheaded a school bus 
program in suburban Illinois with major opposition from church/
school members. Crankshaft yelled at his daughter for having a cold 
(she was sneezing in the comic) and running around in ``socking'' 
feet. The abuse of the English language is a feature of 
``Crankshaft''. Today the blond haired kid was featured in a jazz 
band with Crankshaft and family in the audience.
    ``Crankshaft'', the grouchy one, complained about the ``Tune''! 
Knowing my father's agenda and drive to place me in another music 
performance role (which will never occur) these Ohio crazed authors 
drew a foreplanned comic thinking I would go back to NBC Burbank and 
the Tonight Show again this week after the New Year's Eve live show. 
Actually, after the intentional anthrax?/flu/viral/bacterial 
poisoning on New Year's Day

[[Page 25044]]

(I could feel the immediate effects of the bio attack during my 
workout at the Sporting Club on Tuesday evening) I decided to ``set 
up'' the perpetrators once again, to flush out the game for the 
``kill''.
    Several times at Tonight Show tapings during December 2001 I was 
seated near the keyboard artist and jazz guitar bandleader, Kevin 
Eubanks. I enjoy any seat in NBC studio 3, and I am especially 
pleased to hear the music up close & personal. This band is first 
class! I visited three Nike retail stores, two corporate owned 
showcases, and ran 5 miles with the Beverly Hills NikeTown Running 
Club on Thursday 01/03/02, finishing my workout at 24 Fitness 
Sporting Club Irvine. I am still about eight pounds of accumulated 
fat away from my previous dimensions.
    This addition of weight was NOT, I repeat, NOT from overeating 
... intentional family food poisoning / university hushed 
experiments / subversive governmental people using my tuned athletic 
body as a platform for their Nazi-like human experiments! Just when 
my weight returns to about 160#, the ``ideal weight for me'' and the 
weight I maintained for years in the Bay Area & San Diego, others 
spike my food with poisons that block digestion & normal waste 
passage, causing fat deposits. I have overheard and read several 
features that explain the invasive and totally non consenting 
experiments as protein / carcinoma related, as my father's and 
mother's family has a history of cancers.
    My intentions are not to secure a performing musical opportunity 
at the Tonight Show or other venue at this time. As I have stated in 
a previous memo to the DOJ, I have attended the Tonight Show and 
others at NBC Burbank for professional, Los Angeles based public 
relations. I wanted the Hollywood and Burbank media troops, everyday 
workers like myself, as well as Hollywood's ``moguls'' and my 
competitors to see me in person, not as the Family Ties ``Alex'' in 
the blue sportcoat, but as a human that was subjected to some of the 
most sadistic plots, who triumphed over adversity, government 
subversion, and millions of dollars of negative PR.
    I have been pleased to have worked successfully with over four 
unique security forces in front and inside NBC Burbank, as well as 
many of the private and governmental security staff at the Crystal 
Cathedral, Chicago Stadium, and Qualcomm (Jack Murphy) Stadium in 
San Diego. Folks, we have to have immediate closure on this long 
overdue royalty issue, it's really in the billions of dollars, and 
all of the other related issues from Family Ties, Stephen 
Spielberg's SKG team, Universal, McDonald's Corporation, Jack-In-
The-Box, Nissan, Disney / Touchstone Pictures, IBM, Microsoft, and 
others. The issue can be resolved real easily, and by authorities 
through government directed wire transfers and seizures of 
fraudulently acquired assets.
    Transfer my CASH to me NOW! LET ME KNOW THAT I HAVE MY ASSETS 
AND THEIR LOCATIONS. I will decide how to invest these assets with 
the guidance of professional investment firms. I do not sponsor 
anyone's investment of my assets without my consent.
    THIS IS MY MONEY!
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Robert Remington



MTC-00008589

From: Ron Garton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:32am
Subject: May it Please the Court
    Renata--
    The settlement outlined is wholly inadequate. It stipulates 
behavioral remedies going forward, but addresses no punitive damages 
whatsoever for Microsoft's continuing illegal actions since the 1995 
consent decree. Why? In addition, the terminology 'middleware' is 
used in such a vague manner, as to render the agreement virtually 
unenforceable. Microsoft's clear violation(s) of the Sherman Anti-
trust law are no less significant than the Teapot Dome scandal of 
the 1800's in U.S. history.
    Clearly, there can be no question as to Microsoft's guilt, and 
the government's desire to 'close the book' on this action; based in 
part on publicized statements that indicated it was 'in the best 
interest of the country and the technology sector', is nothing more 
than partisan politics. Frankly, to use the events of 9/11 and other 
current events occurring around the world as a substantive 'reason' 
to end this action makes me ill to my stomach.
    I wonder, if the government compiled a list of 'industry 
standards' bodies that have been formed over the last 20 years, and 
analyzed Microsoft's commitment to those, what they would find? As a 
contributing member to several of those organizations, I can speak 
from experience, Microsoft only contributed to Standards Bodies ( 
that would've produced cheaper, more compatible software that would 
run on any operating system, regardless of hardware ... ) when it 
saw an opportunity to influence peddle it's proprietary view of 
software and operating systems. IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WHERE A 
STANDARDS BODY MOVED TO CREATE A TRULY MULTI-NATIONAL, MULTI-
PLATFORM INTEROPERABLE SET OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, EITHER 
MICROSOFT VOWED TO CREATE THEIR OWN STANDARD OR DETERMINED WAYS IN 
WHICH THEY COULD USE THEIR ``FUD'' STRATEGY (Fear, Uncertainty and 
Doubt) to undermine the effort. In essence, their actions, as noted 
in the Consent decree of 1995, were in direct violation of the 
Sherman Anti-trust Law. How then, do we determine as a country, 
through our 'duly' elected officials, that those activities haven't 
harmed consumers, sufficient to warrant some form of punitive 
damages? While the rest of the technology industry was attempting to 
create the '110V' standard connectivity for software, Microsoft was 
publicly proclaiming that it ALONE had the power to dictate what 
standard the rest of the country (and the world) would use for 
connecting software between computers, operating systems and all 
manner of digital devices?
    Did this fact escape the DOJ in their reasoning process? In my 
view, the ONLY recourse is to :
    1. Break the company into (2) or more distinct operating 
companies, and require that all Microsoft Office tools source code 
be auctioned to a top 20 international s/w company, for the express 
purpose of porting it to alternate operating systems.
    2. In addition, all source code for the Internet Explorer 
Browser needs to go the same route.
    3. All Microsoft Operating System interfaces (API's) and source 
code must be placed in the public domain.
    4. Future Operating System enhancements must pass muster with an 
Industry Consortium, comprised of a cross-section of senior leaders 
in the IT industry, not just so-called 'Microsoft enemies'
    5. Marketing/Sales activities should be monitored by a 'DOJ' 
oversight committee, similar in concept to the proposed 
``governance'' body.
    6. Microsoft should not be allowed to 'buy' or 'invest' in early 
stage technology companies until a pre-determined 'moratorium' 
period has expired, based on the execution date of the amended 
agreement.
    The basic principles of these sanctions will yield significant 
benefits immediately in 'stimulating' innovation in the technology 
sector, by forcing more competition and providing investors, 
consumers and early stage startup companies COMPLETE confidence that 
the technology that they build/buy, will ultimately be compatible 
with ANY Web Browser and/or operating system. Companies can then be 
FREE to compete on the basis of WHO they sell to, WHAT clearly 
distinguishes their product from the competition with the confidence 
that they won't suffer repercussions from MS.
    Has it gone without notice that the rest of the computing world 
(specifically, Europe and Asia) have similar views of Microsoft's 
exclusionary practices?
    If Mr. Gates wants to run his business in this country, and 
remain a citizen of this country, perhaps he should consider the 
protection he receives from our laws ... laws that he has knowingly 
violated. If he can't manage his company by those laws, then we 
should gladly hand him his pink slip, and send him, his company and 
anyone who works for him, on their merry way to whatever country 
would like their tax dollars. My sense of it is, this country is 
much bigger than just Microsoft, and aspires to a higher level of 
ethics and standards, than those practiced by Mr. Gate's staff. We 
will do just fine as a country and/or an industry with or without 
Microsoft and their tax dollars and jobs.
    I've been following this case, and this company, for many years. 
I'm a 25 year veteran of the Computer industry, and I thinks it time 
that we as a country (and as a Justice Department), finally stood up 
to Microsoft and deliver the judgment that has been long overdue. A 
concerned, informed Technology citizen.



MTC-00008590

From: Robin Mockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:

[[Page 25045]]

    I am informed that I can comment on the Microsoft settlement by 
sending an e-mail to your address.
    My comment is that the lesser 'punishments' now being imposed on 
Microsoft are less unjust than the previously-attempted split-up of 
the company. However, they are still unjust because Microsoft has 
done nothing wrong and does not deserve any punishment whatsoever.
    I am not a Microsoft employee or even very knowledgeable about 
computers, beyond being able to send e-mail messages (for which I am 
grateful to Bill Gates and inventors like him), but if I knew more I 
could probably offer specific technical reasons why punishing his 
company will hurt the economy and slow the rate of increase in 
everyone's living standards.
    Instead, I will make a simple moral claim that antitrust laws as 
such are inherently unjust, as explained by Alan Greenspan in essays 
in Ayn Rand's book, --Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal--. Antitrust 
laws in any form constitute a tyrannical element within the 
government, because (1) they impose punishment on people simply for 
being productive, and (2) they impose punishment in a manner which 
cannot be predicted in advance, or which depends on subjective 
interpretations by judges or government prosecutors. Consequently, 
the decisions of productive businessmen are controlled by the 
personal opinions of government agents, rather than objectively 
written statutes. This makes some of the businessmen produce less 
because their decisions are blocked, others because they are afraid 
of unanticipated penalties, and others because they choose to make 
less effort in such a climate. More importantly, it demeans leaders 
who deserve gratitude from the rest of us.
    Yours sincerely,
    Robin Mockett, Ph.D.



MTC-00008591

From: Dexter Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:34am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
    2002-01-04
    I am repeating this message in order to ensure you have it for 
inclusion in the public record.
    Dexter Anderson
From: Dexter Anderson
To: [email protected]
Cc: Anderson, Dexter
Sent: 2001-12-12 12:25
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]



MTC-00008592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    The Clinton Administration's Justice Dept. started an attack on 
Microsoft and continued it largely because Microsoft failed to pay 
off the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is 1,000 x more 
corrupt and dangerous than Microsoft.
    Drop the persecution of Bill Gates. Look into former Clinton 
Administration and current Democratic operatives.
    John Carnick



MTC-00008593

From: Neil H. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is too much punishment for Microsoft. This is a 
world of competition, and because of it we have the software and 
hardware that we do today.
    Perhaps Microsoft has used some less than perfect marketing 
methods, but what is clear is that they do provide reasonably priced 
excellent software. To make them split their software applications 
would hurt the consumer.
    I urge you to complete the agreed upon settlement and don't 
deter Microsoft from continuing to produce the software we all use 
every day.



MTC-00008595

From: zevy yanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:44am
Subject: Settlement
    As a tax payer I believe the attack on Microsoft was instigated 
by competitors like Sun, Oracle, AOL, and IBM and not by consumers 
like me. We have enjoyed the benefit of great software products and 
innovations for our PCs that would have never been possible with 
multiple operating system standards.
    I truly believe the settlement agreed upon the DOJ and Microsoft 
is a fair one and will let Microsoft to continue to innovate in a 
way that benefits consumers in the US and worldwide.



MTC-00008596

From: Mark Clifton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to send you my thoughts and comments regarding the 
Microsoft settlement. I think it is fair and reasonable and should 
stand as is...it is time to move on and get this economy back on 
track. Continuing to focus on this case has no value and just 
creates more uncertainty and unrest. It1s time for politics to move 
aside and let1s get this country going again.



MTC-00008597

From: Lee Sherrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:01 am
    To whom this may concern:
    Or to whomever may really give a shit about what the little guy 
thinks.
    Over the past year or so that this trial has been going on. I 
have been periodically watching just what was going on. In some 
cases, I would have to catch up on certain issues. After reviewing 
most of the events that have been forced upon the American public 
throughout the whole trial process. I have analyzed many of the 
things that have been changing throughout the US and it has put me 
into a state of fear. Not fear for my life or bodily harm, instead 
it is a fear of the little guys financial futures. Let's face it! 
The computer age is here to stay, and in order for the people of 
this country are to ever move forward in their lives, in a financial 
capacity, we are no, we must have computer abilities and be to move 
forward in the world of computing.
    Before this thing with OUR government suing Microsoft for being 
unfair in some of their practices of doing business. The god damned, 
selfish, greedy, son-a-bitches that were approached by and paid off 
by the other competitors and some that were not competitors just the 
heads of billion-dollar corporations that disliked the way that Bill 
Gates made his fortune. The ones who did not work to make their 
fortunes, rather inherited them. The elite ``Good-Ol'-Boys'' club. 
Now I know what I am saying from this point on will be looked at as 
though I am a nut! All I have to say about that is, PROVE ME WRONG!!
    Most intelligent people know of, or have heard of, or personally 
know of the very thing that I am speaking of. Most the elite ``Good-
Ol'-Boys'' club either know or sat

[[Page 25046]]

down and figured out a plan to demolish the DOT COMS of America. 
They knew that most of them were on shaky ground with means to their 
financial stability. Knowing full well that all they had to do was 
shake the ground under the DOT COMS and they would crumble. Hell I 
could see that. Several years ago, I had even mentioned to a friend 
of mine that was in charge of operations within a DOT COM company 
that his company had better stick a little more of their money into 
the more stable investments out there or they were going to 
collapse. I told him that ``you can't balance a bowling ball on a 
stick forever, something has to go.
    This is only the first part a very large puzzle. Now you take 
and put that part of the large puzzle down and no one sees a 
picture. So, you move on to the other parts of the picture. The part 
of the picture is a large part, but not the main part. The main part 
is in a simple question. WHY? Why did the US government's so called 
``Justice Department'' go after a relatively medium size company (In 
the eyes of the multi-billion dollar companies.) instead of the 
other larger multi-billion dollar companies out there that are doing 
exactly what the ``Justice Department'' is claiming that Microsoft 
was in the middle of? There are quite a huge number of them out 
there. Take for instance the oil companies, any one of them will do. 
Price gouging the consumers, creating a FALSE oil crisis in order to 
generate overly abundant profits for a product that is technically 
given to them by the government. The property that is acquired by 
the oil companies are sold to the companies for a very, very 
ridiculously low price. (I know for a fact, because I tried, that 
the government will not sell me or my friends large government-owned 
tracts of land for the price that the oil companies paid!) One fine 
note of interest is that most of these purchases and ``gifts'' of 
properties (land) were released to the oil companies during 
Republican Administrations. Stop and think whom was in office when 
our ``so-called'' oil shortage happened in the `70's. Look and see 
that in the 80's all of the land that changed hands and the 
countries that were developed by the US tax dollars. Check out just 
what companies did then and do now either control or have 
controlling interest in most of the oil rich countries. Take a look 
at just what is happening now with our present admin in charge. 
There has been a fight for decades to keep the oil companies out of 
the Alaskan Wilderness. The oil companies had a relatively small 
parcel of land up there, but during the Regan and Bush (The older 
Bush) admins the oil companies kept on building their huge damned 
pipeline.
    Now this Bush admin suddenly came up with the statement that 
it's for a stronger America and said that he does not care what is 
thought about it, that the agencies that have been fighting legally 
to keep the oil companies out of the pristine wilderness areas are 
all wrong. Then had congress quickly pass a bill allowing the oil 
companies in there, knowing that it will take years to fight it in 
the courts. By then it will be too late. The oil up there WILL be 
produced! I guess it's no big surprise, after all he's an oil man 
from an oil state as well as his dad. It makes you wonder why the 
huge oil companies are not being looked at very close. Hhmmm I 
wonder?
    Another group of huge multi-billion dollar (in some cases multi-
trillion dollar) companies that have not been looked at are the 
Pharmaceutical companies. They have clearly and absolutely done all 
of the things that Microsoft is charged with and then some. Stopping 
research on non-chemical oriented drugs such as plants that they 
could not control the patents on or keep other companies from 
developing. Buying off the FDA to keep other smaller Pharmaceutical 
companies from developing drugs that would and did work but could 
not get the FDA to pass the drugs for consumer use until the larger 
companies could buy off the smaller companies and control the 
patent. They would then take those newly patented drugs and shelf 
them until exorbitant profits could be pulled out of the products.
    They have developed drugs that are bad for the consumers and 
promoted them as safe and developing other drugs to compensate for 
the damage the other drugs had created, when the whole time they had 
shelved or thrown out drugs that were more effective and safer for 
the consumer but were more costly to make or the products used to 
make the drugs can not be controlled by the Pharmaceutical 
companies. A very good example of this is in the cancer medicines. 
One in particular, the medicine used in Chemotherapy, RAT POISIN! 
There is several medicines outside the US which have been developed 
and has been tested and has been working on thousands of patients 
for years with tremendous results. In most of the cases the results 
are far, far better. These medicines will not be let into the US to 
help save the American consumers from the other medicines out there 
because the Pharmaceutically controlled FDA will not let them pass 
the ``so called'' stringent testing the FDA requires and thus 
keeping them out of the country. If that can not be seen as 
restricting trade and stifling competition and controlling the 
marketplace then the English language had better get a new 
dictionary started, `cause we are going to have to learn a brand new 
language.
    I have not even been able to hit the Iceberg let alone see 
what's underneath it! This trumped up, half-baked, jerk-off charges 
that out fucking government representatives have thrown out to the 
American public and have expelled millions of dollars of our hard 
earned tax dollars, given to a bunch of has-been over-the-hill 
pretend lawyers whom if you were to ask them directly if they even 
had a mild clue of just what the American public really wanted or 
needed, you know the answer would be ``Duh!''
    They need to take a long, hard look at the other companies out 
there that are doing the complaining against Microsoft. Oh my god 
what do you think they would find! Most of those companies are 
really into the bad stuff that they are accusing Microsoft of. But 
that will never happen, as we all know. IBM is one of the accusers. 
If the truth could ever be known they are just trying to get back at 
Gates for making them look like a bunch of dopes. Gates is not 
considered one of the ``Good Ol' Boys'', IBM is.
    The government needs to stop all of the bullshit they are doing 
to Microsoft. Just finish with the ``hand-slap'' and move onto the 
other companies out there that are REALLY working against the 
American consumer, that are REALLY grossly committing consumer trade 
issues, that are REALLY and truly not doing the American consumer 
and the country as a whole. If you were to put all of the charges 
that are brought up against Microsoft and multiply them by fifty 
that figure would only be a portion of the charges that could be 
brought against the other companies that I have previously spoke of.
    If the government is going to really work for the American 
consumers then they need to drop the crap with Microsoft and look at 
those other companies. They would be doing such an extreme service 
for American that it would take decades after it was all over to 
actually figure out just what was done and find out just how great 
of a country the US had become. Well I think that it will turn out 
to be just a pipe dream. The people in charge of this whole mess are 
Republicans and when they listen they can not heard words, they only 
hear the shuffling sound that money makes. The thought of actual 
justice will never come about. With everyone that is in the majority 
in our government has a new phrase written above the scratched out 
version that was on the United States Constitution. It now read, 
``By the people for the people, as long as they are rich ... etc. 
etc.''
    Written by



MTC-00008598

From: Wetherhold,Kent W.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This fraudulent antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft must come to 
a close immediately. This is nothing more than a leftover Clinton 
administration attack upon one of America's greatest entrepreneurs. 
Please do what is right and put an end this atrocity.
    Sincerely,
    Kent Wetherhold +



MTC-00008599

From: Randy Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want this settled and put behind us. Microsoft is a good 
company and what you have done has hurt our country's economy!
    I agree that a monopoly is bad but you haven't proven where any 
consumer has been hurt. I think this whole action was dictated by 
companies who can't compete on their own product's merit.
    Thanks,
    Randy Neal



MTC-00008600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    Dept. of Justice:
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to voice my opinion on the current ongoing case 
against Microsoft. It seems that the case goes on and on, driven by 
companies and their lobbyists that are

[[Page 25047]]

more interested in deriving an income from the suit rather than 
buckling down, working hard and becoming a true competitor. Also 
some States see a ruling against Microsoft as a cash cow and help 
keep the case ongoing to try and reap benefits for themselves with 
no concern for the effect it has on both the U.S. economy and the 
State of Washington. The people who keep this case going never seem 
to bring up all the good that Microsoft, Gates and many employees do 
for education and charitable needs in this country plus the tax 
revenues derived for the U.S. and Washington.
    WOULD YOU PLEASE BRING THIS TO AN END!!!!
    THANKYOU.
    Al Short
    Bainbridge Is. WA



MTC-00008601

From: Ralph C. Whaley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:44am
Subject: US vs. Microsoft
    The right to property is an inalienable right. Microsoft 
Corporation including it's owners, the shareholders, have the 
absolute right to the property created in the context of the 
company. The right to property includes the absolute right to 
determine the conditions of sale and use of that property. Property 
rights include setting any price for any product at any time to any 
prospective buyer with any conditions of use of the product the 
seller sets. The prospective buyer is free to accept or reject the 
terms of sale and suffers no violations of his own rights when 
confronted with the seller's conditions.
    The anti-trust laws impose rules of use and sale of property 
under threat of government force. The government's responsibility is 
the protection of rights not their violation. These laws are 
violations of property rights and should be repealed.
    Ralph C. Whaley MD
    460 S. 5th St.
    Barron, WI 54812-1509
    Phone: 715-537-3614



MTC-00008602

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen,
    For inclusion in the public record: Microsoft has gained its 
position through free trade but, the competition has resorted to 
government intervention. All that the government does it does by 
force. All the government has it has taken by force. ``The simpering 
rotter who whines that he sees no difference between the power of 
the dollar and the power of the whip ought to learn the difference 
on his hide''--Ayn Rand. Antitrust creates not a level playing field 
but a crime scene. The department of Justice owes Microsoft a 
conspicuous apology post haste.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas da Silva



MTC-00008603

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am of the opinion that the so-called ``trial'' of Microsoft is 
an abomination in a country that represents itself to be founded on 
the princicples of individual rights. Microsoft has done more to 
advance the personal computer age than any other ten companies 
combined. The premise that Microsoft achieved these great heights 
through ``coercion'' is farcical. Take a look around the market 
today, and you will find that the majority of products are designed 
for the Microsoft platform because the company is successful, not 
because they were complled to at the point of a gun--only the 
imperial federal government possesses that particular methodology.
    If you are truly concerned with public comment and the ``public 
interest,'' then as a member of the public I emplore you to leave 
well enough alone. There is no calculating the harm that you have 
already done this company (and how much this has ``cost the American 
consumer''). Back off now, and let Microsoft's productive genius go 
unmolested unless and until it commits a bona fide crime of some 
sort.
    Please keep in mind that the only legitimate function for a 
government is to protect its citizens from force or fraud; Microsoft 
has committed neither. If you want to truly pursue a prosecution 
that will be a ``victory for consumers everywhere,'' then close this 
matter and let Microsoft continue to improve the lives of countless 
individuals--programmers, stockholders, innovators, businessmen, and 
especially consumers.
    If the DoJ is truly interested in ``settling'' this case 
properly, I submit that the only proper way to do that is to quit 
the prosecution, to apologize profusely and publicly, and to pay 
restitution for the unnecessary for waste of this company's time 
over the last two years. Only then can the DoJ begin to earn the 
title of ``Department of Justice.''
    H.G. Lee,
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00008604

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: I feel very strongly that the DOJ should settle the 
Microsoft case as it's currently proposes. It is fair for both 
sides.
    Jeff Graber



MTC-00008605

From: JESSIE AURON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement is fair to all parties concerned 
and that the dragging out of this case must be considered unfair to 
the majority of parties concerned. Microsoft has acted in an 
honorable manner. Please act quickly to end this.
    What is a weed? A plant whose virtues have not yet been 
discovered.



MTC-00008606

From: Drlik, Scott
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/4/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to implement the settlement reached in the Microsoft 
case. Further litigation would be counterproductive. Already, 
millions of dollars have been spent to reach a decision that has 
been deemed acceptable by millions of individuals.
    As a user of the technology being judged, I was readily able to 
choose between providers. In fact, I am of the opinion that the 
lawsuit lacked initial merit. Those millions of dollars spent on 
this case could very well have been allocated to more needy causes; 
e.g., education, homelessness, poverty.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Francis Scott Drlik



MTC-00008607

From: Andrew Sisolak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/3/02  2:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT ALL OF THE LITIGATION AGAINST 
MICROSOFT RE MONOPOLY/UNFAIR TRADE ISSUES BE TERMINATED IMMEDIATELY. 
THE ENTIRE PURSUIT OF MICROSOFT WAS A MASSIVE WASTE OF TAXPAYER 
MONEY, BENEFITTING ONLY ITS COMPETITORS AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS TRYING 
TO MAKE A NAME FOR THEMSELVES. THE MOTIVES OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO 
CONTINUE THIS ABUSE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IS BEYOND SUSPECT.
    I HOPE THAT THE VOTING PUBLIC REMEMBERS THOSE INDIVIDUALS 
ADVOCATING THIS LITIGATION AND KEEPS THEM FROM ANY ELECTED OFFICE.



MTC-00008608

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long time PC user, and resident of Utah ( one of the states 
whining about the settlement) I would just like to say that Novell 
at one time dominated the networking/desktop environment. The main 
reason they lost this position is their lack of focus and 
concentration , not some alleged ``unfair'' tactics on the part of 
Microsoft.
    The local politicians and power structure see this trial as a 
way to show their ``dedication'' in defending their constituents. 
The fact that the local ``bull got gored'' does not constitute 
unfair business practice. If Novell had paid attention to the market 
place, and made their core product better it would still be number 
one in terms of market share. Microsoft is a relentless competitor, 
and one must pay attention to the game if one wishes to win.
    best regards
    steve mackelprang
    west jordan, utah



MTC-00008609

From: Steven Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the gov't (Justice Department) should leave 
Microsoft alone. The employees of Microsoft should be free to 
innovate and

[[Page 25048]]

sell their innovations on the free market. It is a basic requirement 
of man that he needs to be free. I don't see how the gov't should 
treat the individuals that make up Microsoft any different than 
anybody else. The Justice Department should try cracking down on 
computer piracy. That is the gov't should be going after the 
criminals those that initiate the use of physical force in it's 
different forms. The bottom line is that Microsoft has a right to 
earn as big of a profit as it can. Microsoft should be set free.
    Steven Henderson
    Van Buren, Michigan



MTC-00008610

From: Gary Olson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally feel the Microsoft settlement is fair. I think the 
States that are not agreeing to it are looking for some easy money 
and are not really interested in fair competition. I think that 
other companies could and will invent software that is better than 
Microsoft's and when they do there will be a market for it. People 
will use the software that is best for their home or business 
situation.
    Thank You.
    Gary Olson
    S78 W26750 Hillview Drive
    Mukwonago, WI 53149



MTC-00008611

From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please keep me informed. I am very concerned about the health of 
the software industry should an inappropriate settlement with 
Microsoft be reached.
    Morley Chalmers
    for the 7 Office team
    [email protected]
    416/926-9296



MTC-00008612

From: David E Provencher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is my opinion that the settlement that was agreed upon should 
be accepted, and this case closed. This has gone on long 
enough..........
    David E Provencher



MTC-00008613

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:11am
Subject: Re: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    To whom it may concern,
    You may forward the letter to Microsoft that has my name on it. 
I agree strongly with your letter.
    Pat Brittain



MTC-00008614

From: N. Kydonieus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that this is another instance of the US government 
penalizing the best in men to prop up the lesser men that cannot 
compete effectively. To do this the US government has to initiate 
force which is a destructive activity. The American and the global 
economy has been paying for this travesty of injustice. In order to 
leave the caves of barbarism and enter civilized existence, we have 
to ban the initiation of force, not institutionalize it.



MTC-00008615

From: Ron Unangst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a user of Microsoft products for years and have 
always been satisfied with their products. I urge you to settle this 
and let the this country get on with the business at hand. Overall I 
am very upset with the governments handling of the Microsoft case in 
the first place. Look around, what about the merger with Warner and 
AOL? Microsoft and Intel have done more to take this country forward 
with the PC than anyone. Enough is enough. Settle and move onward. 
The only ones complaining now are MS competitors............
    Tunney Act
    Roland Z. Unangst



MTC-00008616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It appears to us that the Justice Department is coming very near 
to destroying one of our greatest American companies. Microsoft 
should be left entirely free to invent and innovate to the limits of 
their capabilities. They should not be forced to share their 
proprietary information with their competitors. Our recession 
started with the opening of the ``Let's get Microsoft.'' 
governmental mind set and action. In athletics we do not force the 
lead runner or team to slow down or score less for their 
competitor's benefit!
    For your information, we own Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Dell, 
Oracle, Texas Instruments, AOL and Gateway stock. We urge you to 
discontinue and put an end to this lawsuit in a timely fashion for 
the sake not only of most American consumers, but for the economic 
welfare of our country as well.
    Sincerely,
    Alexander M. Thomson and
    Florence W. Thomson (Mrs. Alexander M. Thomson)



MTC-00008617

From: Creech, Robert
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For years now various envious business leaders have been trying 
to convice government that Microsoft and Bill Gates are deamons. I 
know that Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison and Steve Case are more 
charismatic and come across as nice guys but, in my opinion, they 
are simply vary hard nosed and egotistical business men. The reason 
that Microsoft has cornered the market on operatong systems has to 
do with great marketing more than it does nasty business practices. 
Everyone knows that Apple had a better system so why didn't they 
prevail? I'll tell you why--lousy marketing. The same exact thing 
happened when the VHS standard beat out the Beta standard for VCR's. 
Beta was much better but they lost out. And the other key reason 
that Microsoft has done so well is because they established sorely 
needed STANDARDS.
    Any company that establishes needed standards will have an 
advantage. Even though IBM had a very competitive operating system, 
nobody was interested. Why? Partly because IBM was out of style at 
that time. But also because tha last thing we need in business is 
another complicated piece of software to integrate--who needs it?
    How can you hammer away at Microsoft when any number of other 
companies enjoy a huge market share in their product line? Please, 
let's move on to things that are really important to people. I would 
love to see the AG in Massachusetts spend his efforts making sure 
that the executives at Polaroid do not squander my pension fund--
something that thousands of us desparately need to stay healthy. 
This AG is really using his office to run for Governor--just like 
the previous AG did. Microsoft has done the country and the world a 
huge service and should not be raked over the coals for being better 
at the software business and their rivals.
    Bob Creech
    Applications Systems Manager
    TAC Worldwide Companies
    (617) 969-3100 x294
    [email protected]



MTC-00008618

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:43am
Subject: microsoft
    I don't think further litigation is necessary. I didn't feel the 
government should have gotten involved in this situation to begin 
with. The only ones benefiting from all this litigation are the 
attorneys as usual.
    j roth



MTC-00008619

From: Paula Rabel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Settlement
    Please just settle this case. We have never agreed with it to 
begin with and would like the litigation to be settled now.
    Sincerely,
    Bob & Paula Rabel



MTC-00008620

From: jereeves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe Microsoft's benefits to consumers far outweigh any 
costs. We urge you to please settle this case as soon as possible.
    Jerry & Corinne Reeves

[[Page 25049]]

    12277 Arrow Point Drive NE
    Bainbridge Island WA 98110
    [email protected]



MTC-00008621

From: geekfest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's unbelievable that after Microsoft has been found guilty in 
two courts the Department of Justice would accept a settlement 
agreement that was earlier presented and rejected. This case sets a 
terrible precedent. Microsoft has been convicted and the Department 
of Justice has decided to let Microsoft determine its own 
punishment. I'm not aware of any other case in which the guilty 
party was permitted to write its own settlement agreement.
    This approach to resolution generates more problems than it 
solves. Where is the incentive to obey the law? Microsoft gets to 
keep its illegally acquired gains. Its competitor's position in the 
market has been destroyed. It has been found guilty in two courts 
and will now walk away in better business position than it was 
before it broke the law. Based on this pattern will Microsoft choose 
to break the law in the future? Will other corporations do the same? 
The precedent established by this settlement agreement will not only 
reward Microsoft for deciding to break the law, it will penalize 
those companies that choose to obey it, and encourage other 
companies faced with similar competitive problems to ignore the law 
in the formulation of their solutions. The consumer will be harmed 
in the future simply because the threat of future litigation by the 
government will be meaningless. Microsoft has already been through 
litigation, been found guilty, and has been allowed to keep 
everything they acquired by violating the law.
    Without punitive damages that make violation of the law an 
ineffective approach to solving business competitive problems 
corporations will use illegal methods. The laws intended to protect 
the market and consumers will get pushed aside by illegally 
maintained monopolies. Any settlement at the least must have 
punitive monetary damages that remove any monetary gain achieved by 
choosing to violate the law. In addition any settlement of a 
corporation convicted of illegally maintaining its monopoly must 
include either structural changes in the corporation that prohibit 
future violations, or a consent agreement that has significant 
predetermined fines and penalties that can be applied by government 
regulators (or in this case the oversight committee). The fines and 
penalties must be large enough to effectively stop illegal behavior 
before the behavior can damage the marketplace and consumers and 
they must be applied quickly enough to stop damage to the 
marketplace and consumers. If Microsoft feels the committee 
assessment is inappropriate let it go to court to get its money 
back. Since Microsoft is a repeat offender (they violated their 
original consent agreement and have been convicted of illegally 
maintaining their monopoly) it's not unreasonable to defend against 
the possibility that they may continue to exhibit illegal behavior 
in the future.
    Since any agreement will have different possible interpretations 
the only effective agreement will be one in which the oversight 
committee has enforcement powers. It will force Microsoft to either 
argue their interpretation of the agreement with the committee 
chosen to represent the public interest or return to court for a 
formal determination. The proposed consent agreement does nothing to 
discourage illegal behavior by Microsoft and sets a precedent that 
will harm consumers and the market in the future. I urge the court 
to reject this proposed settlement as inadequate protection for 
consumers and force a more punitive settlement or conclusion to this 
case that will send a clear message that laws that prevent the 
illegal maintenance of a monopoly will be strictly enforced. If the 
court fails to send this message then the laws may as well be 
repealed for all the good they will do.
    Thank you for reviewing this comment.
    Sincerely,
    John K. Stevens
    P.O. Box 634
    Bath, OH
    (330) 701-6458



MTC-00008622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to express my views on the subject settlement.
    Go with the Court of Appeals ruling. This case should not be 
dragged out any longer.
    Arthur W. Jacob
    7860 Palmer Rd.
    Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068



MTC-00008624

From: Leslie Ishimi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:03am
Subject: Thanks for asking.
    Haven't been following the settlement closely. But Thanks for 
asking. Haven't been following the settlement closely. But generally 
I think Bill, Microsoft, and the American public got screwed by 
somebody who doesn't get the big picture. What you've done has 
changed the world, daily, for the better, for the last how-many 
years. Somebody ought to be sucking your toe cheese and saying thank 
you minute-by-minute. Sorry for the setbacks. They are inevitable 
when you do something well. And with even a small understanding of 
reality I have come to accept that even if you're able to clear one 
don't-get-it person out of the way, there's always another right 
behind. So tread undaunted as best you can--you are STILL performing 
an incredibly valuable service to the planet as you chart an 
extremely difficult journey for all of us. The way we earn a living 
will continue to change which affects the global economy which, 
unfortunately, still runs the world. I'm sure as the world shakes 
out the wrinkles we will all face more circumstances we don't know 
what to do with at first, but we made it before and we'll just keep 
working our way through the development of our minds and instincts. 
Oh, and remember the words on Henry Miller's tombstone: I outlasted 
the bastards! lol



MTC-00008625

From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I feel it is in the public interest, considering the aftermath 
of September 11th, to reach a speedy conclusion to the Microsoft 
case. Prolonged litigation would only benefit the lawyers, a few 
wealthy competitors and special interest groups, and serve to stifle 
innovation.
    Sincerely,
    Frank J. Brown



MTC-00008626

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my strong view that the current settlement be accepted so 
that the industry can go forward without being ensnared further in 
litigation.
    Hoshang Presswalla, P.E., S.E.
    President
    P.E., Inc.



MTC-00008627

From: batson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust `Comment'
    Greetings:
    What is the closing date to file a COMMENT?
    Regarde,
    Marguarite
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008628

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please settle this matter soon so the economy can move forward.
    Michael Ho
    [email protected]



MTC-00008629

From: Frank and Miriam Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that settlement of the Microsoft case is in the public 
interest. Prolonging this litigation, particularly in the midst of 
uncertain economic times, would benefit only lawyers and a few 
wealthy competitors, and serve to stifle innovation. This case has 
dragged out long enough.
    Yours truly,
    Miriam E. Brown



MTC-00008630

From: Cindy(038)Keith Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

[[Page 25050]]

    I am writing to express my support of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I think the case never should have been brought in the 
first place, and in has gone on for too long. Microsoft has made 
many concessions in this proposed settlement that I believe are very 
fair and address the concerns brought during the court battle.
    Please don't let Microsoft's competitors continue to use the 
U.S. government in their battle to destroy Microsoft.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Cynthia A. Hansen
    P.O. Box 146
    Snohomish, WA 98291
    CC:keithcindy



MTC-00008632

From: Mike Ward
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I represent a computer technology training company, and it is 
our business to remain on the leading edge of information technology 
(IT) to provide necessary IT education to America's corporations. 
Part of my job is to stay abreast of the rapid changes that take 
place in the IT industry every day, so that we can be assured we're 
offering instruction in the latest and most widely-used software 
packages.
    By any measure, Microsoft is a leader in the software industry. 
But from my experience with Microsoft as a company, they earn that 
leadership position every day as fierce competitors and extremely 
good innovators that constantly seek out the needs and feedback of 
their customers. Their research and development budget is nearly $8 
billion per year, and I believe, second to none. That investment 
alone shows their commitment to technical innovations that benefit 
us all.
    As I mentioned, I come across industry information on a daily 
basis that confirms that competition is alive and well for Microsoft 
products. Two obvious examples are the proliferation of open-source 
Linux and Sun's consideration to freely distribute their StarOffice 
suite. And yet, consumers continue to pay for Microsoft's products 
because they are superior at meeting the needs of the market 
majority.
    Please put an end to the litigation, and let the software 
industry seek its own level of healthy competition.
    Mike Ward
    VP, Technology Services
    ONLINE CONSULTING, INC.--
    LEADING EDUCATION TO IT SKILLS
    wILMINGTON & PHILADELPHIA
    Phone: (302) 658-3018, ext.134
    Web : http://www.onlc.com/> http://www.onlc.com
    Email : mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]



MTC-00008633

From: James Ashberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement does nothing except expand Microsft's 
monopoly into the education market where Apple and others still have 
significant claim. By allowing Microsoft to infiltrate these markets 
through donations, whilst seeming on the surface to be a good will 
gesture, is nothing but a mass infestation of Windows based machines 
into the eduation sector.
    In addition, the figure Microsoft have claimed it will spend 
will be greatly smaller, as software's retail value is far higher 
than the actual financial impact it will have on Microsoft. 
Microsoft should be made to donate the cash to the education 
agencies within the United States, and the cash should be used at 
the discretion of the schools and areas involved. This way schools 
will benefit, have freedom of choice, and Microsoft is made to pay. 
Allowing Microsoft's proposed settlement to go through is not only 
folly, but will make a mockery of the US and the US justice system.
    James Ashberry
    Internet Developer
    United Kingdom
    [email protected]



MTC-00008634

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
    We would like to express our viewpoint on the Microsoft case. We 
believe that the settlement reached with the Federal Government and 
the nine states was a reasonable settlement and that it is not in 
the best interest of the Unites States economy to prolong the 
litigation. The settlement reached is in the best interest of all 
concerned and should be imposed on the remaining states that did not 
accept the settlement. In short--lets put an end to the endless and 
counterproductive litigation and allow the free enterprise market to 
function.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Feege
    154 S. Center St.
    Hickory, NC 28602



MTC-00008635

From: JACK ROWE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the suit against Microsoft was harmful to the US 
economy in far greater proportion to any benefit to the public (as 
opposed to Microsofts competitors) that was realized. That's not 
even considering the taxpayer funds spent. It's time to end it and 
get on to other things. Get the settlement completed now, and see 
that all parties, and potential parties are included.
    Dr. Jack D. Rowe



MTC-00008636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The difficulties associated with young or nascent but exploding 
businesses, particularly in the field of communications where there 
continues an ever changing, expanding marketplace of interrelated 
products and services such that no ``snapshot'' of a ``market'' can 
sustain the test of short duration, cannot be over-estimated. And 
attempting to put a noose of control around a growth that will not 
be contained, even in a constructive way, may be more of a restraint 
of trade than a protection of the consumer, even competition. We 
need to enable the establishment of a stable market, before we seek 
so drastically to control its abuse, something only the marketplace 
can do, assisted by the normal policing for fraud and the like. For, 
if we don't, we will only short-circuit the progress in progress as 
evidenced by the growing pains brought on by new discovery and 
development. Desk-top operating platforms have been outgrown by the 
introduction and proliferation of wireless and digital technologies 
which now enable a portion of the desktop to be carried with an 
individual, no matter what his or her interest is, thereby making 
the market for desk-tops something hardly exclusive, which says a 
great deal about operating systems, the only apparent monopoly 
Microsoft had, and certainly, by developments since, no longer has. 
Look at what happened to Compact in view of the Dell approach. Given 
the path of technology, if its progress is not squeezed by 
regulatory cut off, the Microsoft advantage will be lost if it does 
not continue to address innovation and improvement of which its 
competitors are quick to take advantage. Any solution harming 
Microsoft's ability to provide better products and services to the 
communicative consumer, even at the expense of the competition, is 
no foul so long as the market remains as diverse as it is with the 
players as plentiful as they are at numerous levels which prevents 
the monopoly of only a segment, if indeed even that can be defined 
right now.
    Be careful that you don't short-circuit our prosperity in your 
endeavor to protect a ``competition'' which may have already 
succumbed to technological innovation. If the settlement can be read 
to agree with the foregoing, we think it a good agreement.
    A victim of the abuse of competition



MTC-00008638

From: Dwayne Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    My perception is that the settlement between the United States 
Department of Justice and nine states is in the public interest. The 
settlement seems reasonable and fair to all parties. More litigation 
to satisfy some of Microsoft's wealthy competitors is not in the 
public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Dwayne Jennings
    5105 Briarwood Cove
    Milan, TN 38358



MTC-00008639

From: GRADY Tim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    After reading on the proposed legal settlement with Microsoft, I 
believe the proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals 
of a proper remedy: halting

[[Page 25051]]

the illegal conduct, promoting competition in this industry, and 
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Microsoft was proven to have broken the law, which makes them 
criminals. They should be treated as such. My career is in 
information technology and I have witnessed first hand what damage a 
company like Microsoft, allowed to perform business as it had, can 
do to stifle innovation and creativity that benefit us all.
    I would like to suggest creating remedies that will be clear, 
lasting and permanent. Microsoft should not be given wormholes to 
get past any actions taken against them and I don't believe that 
Microsoft giving away billions of dollars in software to 
underprivileged schools is a good idea as that reinforces some of 
it's tactics that are practiced today.
    Respectfully,
    Timothy M. Grady



MTC-00008640

From: Rons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    If Ma Bell was still the only phone company, would we have phone 
innovations like caller ID or cellular and pay only 5 cents a 
minute? If Microsoft was just another software company, think what 
innovations in software we might be using today.
    Microsoft does not innovate they dictate. Microsoft is a 
tyrannical monopoly that runs roughshod over the computer industry. 
Microsoft has shown contempt towards potential competitors and 
disregard for the rulings of the US Department of Justice.
    Microsoft needs a timeout until they learn to play well with 
others.
    Ron Schultz ? President
    Space Port User Group
    408 Sundown Ave.
    Alamogordo, NM 88310



MTC-00008641

From: Harvey J Chiat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please make every effort to settle the Microsoft case per the 
comprehensive agreement reached between Microsoft and federal 
government. It is in the best interest of the internet users that 
the reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling should 
stand and the case should be closed. I am in complete disagreement 
with the stand taken by the Minnesota Attorney General and the 
Attorneys General of the eight other states that oppose the 
settlement reached.
    Harvey Chiat
    3812 Drew Ave S
    Minneapolis MN 55410
    [email protected]



MTC-00008642

From: ROBERT FELSBERG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:02am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let's settle with micosoft and stop wasting time.



MTC-00008643

From: Wayne Brady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:05am
Subject: I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish 
the USA would settle it !
    I feel like microsoft has more than paid the price . I wish the 
USA would settle it !



MTC-00008644

From: Jay Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:07am
Subject: Lawsuit
    I am a Professional Engineer and I use the full slate of 
Microsoft products at work and at home. I enjoy using their products 
and I used Internet Explorer. I like the ability to use products 
that work well together. I have been using PC's since 1984 and know 
how ``lock ups'' cause problems by conflicts. I have never had 
problems with Microsoft products, just other applications that 
typically caused the conflicts.
    I do not believe in the US government suing Microsoft. The 
problems with our stock market began with the announcement of the 
first suit. I would prefer that the states and the government drop 
the lawsuits.
    The average person in the lawsuit gets nothing back, the 
attorneys get all the money. Please drop the action against 
Microsoft.
    Jay Davis
    210 E. Weber Circle
    Lake Charles, LA 70611
    [email protected]



MTC-00008645

From: Jereza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my comments in favor of the proposed 
settlement. I have read through terms of the settlement and feel it 
is fair resolution of the dispute, and provides sufficient ongoing 
monitoring of Microsoft practices in the future. I realize that 
there are competitive interests to whom no settlement would ever be 
satisfactory, as long Microsoft continues to be in business at all, 
and we must take this into account when listening to these 
opposition voices. I ask that the settlement be accepted, because it 
is in the best public interest to do so.
    Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Julie Kirk



MTC-00008646

From: David Hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government's case against Microsoft, well-intentioned as it 
may have been, has been hurting the American economy for far too 
long. The issues the case intended to address are already moot. 
(Laws intended to prevent excesses a century or more ago are not 
working in the current economic environment.)
    While Microsoft may have gone too far in trying to protect its 
interests, the market itself is self-correcting. It is also too 
self-interested to allow Mr. Gates and company to impose his will on 
millions of users who may or may not choose to use Microsoft's 
products.
    The only way Microsoft can stay ahead in this highly competitive 
environment is by developing excellent products. At this point the 
government is impeding Microsoft in this effort by draining so much 
of Microsoft's resources to fighting the legal battle. In this case, 
if the government would just allow the market to function, everybody 
would benefit.
    Sincerely,
    David Hicks



MTC-00008647

From: Glenda Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I feel as little as possible damage should be done to Microsoft. 
I work at a software company and we program for Windows. Our 
developers are able to product top quality software because they are 
working in this one venue rather than for multiple operating 
systems. We need fewer tools for development and are able to offer 
great affordability because of our ability to focus on Windows.
    Microsoft has been portrayed as the ``bad guy'' when they simply 
were more effective than their competitors in a free market system. 
I can't begin to estimate the money that has been saved by the 
American consumer as a result of Microsoft's success.
    Please do not punish this remarkable company and it's 
shareholders any more than has already been done.
    Their competitors hope only to accomplish using the courts what 
they could not in the free market.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Glenda K. Hill
    Greeley, CO



MTC-00008648

From: Deanna Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to pass along my comments on the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Inc. I have worked with one computer system or another for 
the past 20+ years and have found Microsoft to be user friendly and 
first class in product quality. To continue legal action beyond the 
current settlement proposal is an abuse of the judicial system by 
parties wishing to inflict major damage to a capital enterprise. 
History has shown the damage inflicted to IBM seriously curtailed 
their ability to bring new and innovative products to the 
marketplace during the years of litigation by the government. IBM 
too was a first class and quality product prior to and after the 
long term litigation by DOJ. I realize the circumstances are 
different, and today is not the same business environment as the 60s 
and 70s. But once a decision is rendered and settlement fair and 
equitable, resolution in a speedy and decisive manner is best for 
everyone involved.
    Let's finish the job and go one with other business. Beating a 
dead horse wastes tax payers money and abuses our judicial

[[Page 25052]]

system. MS was caught wrongdoing. Come to a settlement that can be 
found agreeable for all parties and let life continue on.



MTC-00008649

From: R J Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would hope that this is the end to this antitrust suit for all 
parties concerned.I feel that a lot of time and a lot of the 
taxpayers money has been spent unwisely supporting this antitrust 
suit to begin with.I also feel that the Clinton Administration 
brought this suit only to repay favors to other corporations since 
their products didn't measure up to what we the public want,so this 
was their way of trying slow Microsoft Corporation so they could 
regain some market share.
    I also feel the Clinton Administration has hurt not only 
Microsoft Corporation but the public at large for the tax revenues 
lost just to bring this suit,and anyone that has a 401k account has 
been affected.
    In closing I would like to comment on the nine states in this 
suit.I don't see that they should be even considered in this 
antisuit.
    Sincerely yours
    Robert Burns



MTC-00008650

From: Eldon Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:33am
Subject: court settlement
    Microsoft has kept its products at a reasonable price from the 
very beginning. Their products have been very useful to the home 
user. As usual the court system drags things out endlessly. Leave 
them alone to do their thing.
    Eldon Erickson
    650 SW Lookout Drive
    Corvallis, OR 97333



MTC-00008651

From: Duncan D McGregor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that this case has been settled in court. 
Microsoft has been penalized and that should be enough. This company 
has made the use of computers available to almost anyone for a very 
reasonable software cost. I strongly recommend that this case be 
settled on the basis of the courts findings.
    Duncan D. McGregor
    313 Curtis Road
    Chesterfield, SC 29709



MTC-00008652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:43am
Subject: Continued law suits
    Lets continue with the free enterprise system in our USA. Finish 
up with this agreed on settlement with Microsoft.
    Ralph Darnell,
    1013 Sudan Dr.,
    Corpus Cristi, TX.



MTC-00008653

From: charles stengel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:43am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Isn't it about time you settle with microsoft on the basis 
established by the courts. lawyers keep coming up with new ways to 
make a buck for themselves.
    C.A. Stengel.



MTC-00008654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:51am
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be left alone. Microsoft has not forced anyone 
to do anything. Microsoft offers a product. One may buy it or not 
buy it. If not, other computers (Apple, for example) and operating 
systems (OSX and Linux, among others) are available. Even if one 
buys Microsoft, one can install browsers other than IE, such as 
Opera, iCab, and Mozilla.
    There is no problem from Microsoft. The problem is envy. Those 
who would deny Microsoft its success, should examine their own 
premises.
    The principle is: Are force, threats of force, or fraud being 
used by Microsoft? These are the only means available to violate our 
rights against our wills. I see no evidence of tort or crime.
    Get over it.



MTC-00008655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ Officials:
    Please settle the lawsuit as negotiated with Microsoft. We, the 
people, are tired of all the litigation that goes on in this 
country. The DOJ and the Attorneys General in the various states 
should set an example --- and not a ``litigious'' example. Enough 
all ready, you made a point and now lets get on with what makes this 
country great = free enterprise! We need to move more quickly into 
the tech age and continuous litigation against or within the tech 
industry is counter productive to a strong, vibrant economy.
    Yours truly, John E. Vallance
    PO Box 1100
    Santa Monica, CA 90406-1100



MTC-00008656

From: Jim Crumley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:54am
Subject: M.S. SUIT
    The DOJ suit against Microsoft triggered a multi-trillion dollar 
meltdown of our economy. Doing far more damage than bin Laden. DROP 
THIS SUIT NOW AND HELP RESTORE AMERICA
    Jim Crumley
    610-558-5811



MTC-00008657

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I understand 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. I believe 
that the settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties involved.
    Ben Claassen
    SCGI
    504 486-2317



MTC-00008658

From: RLifsey357
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:59am
Subject: Lawsuit
    Dear DOJ:
    This lawsuit was ludicrous from the start, essentially a money 
grab by Microsoft want-to-be companies, and trial attorneys. I have 
experienced and can never foresee any hardship caused by Microsoft 
by being a pioneer in the technology field. Hence, the adage, ``No 
good deed in this country goes unpunished''.
    I furthermore consider the settlement under consideration more 
than generous from the accused parties.
    Thank you for consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Lifsey
    Metairie, LA



MTC-00008659

From: Les Troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:03pm
Subject: settlement
    The ``settlement'' is unfair to Microsoft, but I am a practical 
man and I don't think Microsoft is likely to get a fair deal. Any 
further litigation can only hurt the consumer, the economy, our free 
enterprise system and thousands of microsoft shareholders. The only 
ones who can gain are the billionaire executives of companies who 
don't want to compete in the marketplace on the basis of merit and 
service to the consumer.



MTC-00008660

From: james.good
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:09pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I was asked to voice my opinion of this fool hardy law suit of 
Microsoft. I think my first sentence tells you. Companies should be 
allowed to compete in the market place, and not be tied by zealous 
lawyers and government officials who have no business interfering. 
The main cause of this suit to my understanding was the bundling of 
Microsoft Internet Explorer. Well, I have 2 systems with Windows 95 
and 98, and both have Explorer on them. I loaded Netscape on both 
because I like it's operations better. So, where did Microsoft force 
me to purchase and use their product over Netscape? To me, both were 
free and in one system part of my package when purchased.
    I think that the settlement should be finished, Microsoft should 
be left to provide the products and services they are known for and 
the lawyers and government should remain out of the business loop 
unless true illegal business practices are used.
    Regards,
    Jim Good
    Colchester, CT
    Microsoft Share Holder

[[Page 25053]]



MTC-00008661

From: Mona Chicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ and 
several states is fair, not only to the parties involved but to the 
consumers who should be given the ability to choose the best 
software to fit their individual needs.
    Mona Chicks
    [email protected]
    14015 NE 87th Street, Redmond, WA 98052
    (425) 702-9695



MTC-00008662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this over with. The Clinton and Gore Era started 
this. I am a Consumer and on the Internet ONLY BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT. 
No one has done more for the technology and our country plus the 
consumers than Microsoft. Our Stock Market needs MSFT stability. 
Please get off our only good Stock that make the world turn. Tell 
Microsoft you are sorry and pay his Lawyer Bills. The Courts should 
beg forgiveness and the States Attorney Generals that went against 
our only Gross National Product. I hope every State that continues 
to try and get money from Microsoft gets paid back. Remember the 
golden Rule.



MTC-00008663

From: Jon M. Griffith, Assistant Principal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. It has come 
to my attention that you are considering where to focus the funds 
from the settlement. I would like to briefly explain where I would 
hope you would direct some of the settlement.
    Currently, I am the Assistant Principal/Transportation Director/
Athletic Director but before this recent job change I was District 
Computer Coordinator. With that job, I can honestly say the funding 
for technology was scarce. The School District of Spooner is a 
medium size school district in rural Northwest Wisconsin. The 
majority of the supporting community is either retired or around the 
poverty level. Unlike larger communities such as Madison or 
Milwaukee, Spooner and the surrounding smaller towns are not able to 
tap into our local industries for help. Most of the businesses are 
geared towards tourism (such as bars, restaurants and small grocery 
stores).
    In fact the 3rd largest employer in Spooner is our local grocery 
store. With this background, I would hope that any aid that you 
could funnel towards rural areas would greatly be appreciated. To 
compete with schools from larger communities we need to have similar 
resources. Grants and scholarships are basically our only option. 
Asking our voters for help is very depressing (we failed our last 5 
referendums these past 10 years). The funding would help us upgrade, 
build infrastructure and maintain the technology that we do have.
    I can give you many examples, but my point is to ask for you to 
support technology funding for rural areas such as Spooner, 
Wisconsin. Any support would greatly be appreciated.
    Thank You!
    Jon Griffith



MTC-00008664

From: Dean and Urs Ratti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As long-time consumers of Microsoft products, our desire is to 
see the Microsoft lawsuit settled NOW. It appears that those 
entities which are delaying the settlement are doing so for 
political reasons only, to the detriment of the consuming public and 
in turn, the overall economy. As harsh as the Court of Appeals 
ruling is, let it stand, and let us be done with the continual 
litigation.
    Dean and Ursula Ratti



MTC-00008665

From: Jim Cornwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    BEING A BUSINESS OWNER I WAS APPALLED WHEN THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT, SPURRED ON BY THE COMPANY'S COMPETITORS, ATTACKED ONE OF 
THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSES THAT HAS GROWN IN OUR COUNTRY IN 
RECENT YEARS. IT WAS A RELIEF WHEN THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGED 
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND THIS WITCH HUNT WAS BROUGHT TO AN ABRUPT 
CONCLUSION. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ``SETTLEMENT'' TERMS ARE, THE 
IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS STEPPED ASIDE IN 
ORDER TO LET AMERICA'S CAPITALIST FREE MARKET WORK. DO NOT LET THESE 
SPECIAL INTERESTS DELAY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SETTLEMENT.
    THANK YOU FOR RESOLVING THIS MESS AS SOON AS CLINTON WAS 
DEPOSED.
    YOURS,
    JAMES CORNWELL



MTC-00008666

From: John Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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.
    Thank-You
    John Phillips



MTC-00008667

From: donescher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Further prolonging the Microsoft litigation is a drag on the 
U.S. economy and on American industry in general. We believe the 
proposed settlement is fair to the parties and just as importantly, 
the American comsumer. A continuation would appear to be counter 
productive in these dangerous economic times.
    Shirley & Don Escher



MTC-00008668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. The non agreeing states case must be dismissed 
so that we can go on with the rebuilding of the economy of New York 
and the Country. The issue is greed and how the government can try 
to ruin the greatest sucess story in the history of mankind. By 
delaying the settlement of the contribution of massive computer help 
to the schools that need help the most, we delay the help to another 
year of students.
    I hope that we can count on the Federal Government to do the 
right thing and end this mess.
    Walter Steckman
    2 Tudor City Place 10HS
    New York, New York 10017
    [email protected]



MTC-00008669

From: is
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am happy with this settlement.
    Thanks,
    Igor Spivak



MTC-00008670

From: Tony Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:50 pm
Subject: Excellent Comments
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    I'm forwarding this article (and it's link) as I feel it 
portrays the Microsoft settlement for what it really is (nothing 
more than a cleverly disguised scam)
    Yes, the article is long, but should still be read
http://www.macobserver.com/news/2002/20020103/kheit--
msantitrust.shtml

Microsoft: Of Kids & Con Men by John Kheit

Of Kids and Con Men

    Microsoft seems to be trying to use kids and education to lull 
everyone into believing them. The hope seems to be that maybe no one 
will question that Microsoft's proposed settlement allows it to 
extend its monopoly product leverage into the educational market. It 
also seems that Microsoft would like everyone to believe that 
promising to be good monopolists under an honor system is a 
reasonable solution to anticompetitive practices. Perhaps next 
they'll suggest convicted drug dealers should be allowed to pay 
their debts to society by giving free crack to our kids, assuming of 
course they promise to not run other dealers out of the market. Give 
me a break.

[[Page 25054]]

Microsoft Settlement Jibber Jabber

    The laudable goal of helping our kids with a proposed settlement 
that Microsoft wants to direct at schools may well be a cue that 
we're being suckered. Recently, Steve Jobs, the ever effervescent 
technology leader and CEO of both Apple and Pixar, chimed in with a 
chorus of other commentators to pooh-pooh on Microsoft's scandalous 
proposal to settle for its crime of being a naughty monopoly. 
Microsoft's proposal to settle a class-action, civil, antitrust 
lawsuit with various states and private parties could have it paying 
$1.6 billion to schools, mostly by way of Microsoft software, as a 
settlement for its past misdeeds. Mr. Jobs claimed to be ``baffled'' 
by the proposal.
    Some legislators have this nasty habit of packaging together 
nonsensical laws for rhetorical and/or other less-than-righteous 
reasons. It's interesting to note that our government doesn't see 
any hypocrisy in its normal operations employing tying and other 
trust-like activities for leveraging power to force the acceptance 
of questionable laws while not allowing industry to do the same with 
products. I expect that one day soon a bright legislator will draft 
a bill that declares his home address to be tax free zone, provides 
himself with billions in disaster relief, declares himself emperor 
of the world, and adds a law saying ``you should be nice to kids.'' 
This bright legislator will do this for the same reason others have 
done it, to mask his true intentions. The hope in this sort of 
scheme seems to be that everyone will be too ashamed to vote down a 
bill that says ``you should be nice to kids'' for fear of rhetorical 
backlash. The fear of being criticized for voting against a bill 
that says ``you should be nice to kids'' can make people and 
legislators alike do stupid things like adopt laws that are 
otherwise illegitimate.
    So why am I harping on the flimflam tactics of con men, 
terrorists and politicians alike (please, I know I'm being 
redundant) in an article about Microsoft? Because a scam may be 
afoot. The reason for Mr. Jobs' and others' apparent consternation 
is if Microsoft gives its software to schools, it will incur no real 
penalty. Commentators state that approximately $840 million of the 
settlement will come by way of Microsoft software, which would 
actually cost Microsoft approximately a paltry $1 million. That's 
because making copies of its own software is essentially free for 
Microsoft. Furthermore, Apple and others fear that dumping that much 
Microsoft software into schools will shore up Microsoft's market 
position in the educational sector, where up until this point 
Microsoft has not managed to clearly dominate. Many commentators and 
Mr. Jobs have suggested Microsoft give the schools the entire 
settlement in cash. Of course, there is some degree of jibber jabber 
over the amount of cash that Microsoft should give to the 
educational sector, however, it seems that no one dares question the 
choice of market itself. That's crazy.

Only Microsoft Is Paying Attention to Relevant Markets

    The fact that Microsoft chose the educational market, alone, 
should be a red flag to any practicing antitrust attorney. Most 
antitrust attorneys know that market definition at trial is largely 
determinative of the outcome. ``Because market power is often 
inferred from market share, market definition generally determines 
the result of the case.'' Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical 
Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 469 n.15 (1992) (citing Robert 
Pitofsky, New Definitions of Relevant Market and the Assault on 
Antitrust, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1805, 1806-13 (1990)). For example, if 
Microsoft's marketplace were considered to be all software made 
anywhere for any processor, it would only hold a small percentage of 
that market. That's because most of the world's software is not made 
by Microsoft. For example, there is a lot of software in 
calculators, microwaves, cars, airplanes, missiles, telephones, 
mainframes, televisions, etc. Thus, if a court decided that the 
relevant market was all software, then it would have been very 
likely that Microsoft would not have been found to be a monopoly. On 
the other hand, if the relevant market was said to be Intel 
compatible personal computers, then Microsoft easily would be deemed 
a monopoly. You've probably heard this before, but it is important 
to note that it is not illegal, per se, to be a monopoly. However, 
once you are found to be a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse your 
monopoly power in anticompetitive ways. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2; U. S. 
v. Grinnell Corp., 86 S.Ct. 1698 (1966); Intergraph Corp. v. Intel 
Corp., 195 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Regardless, depending 
on how the market is defined, one can pretty much predict if an 
accused company will be found to be a monopoly.

Microsoft's Solution Ignores the Victims

    With this background, it is interesting that Microsoft would 
focus on a market where it is not currently dominant rather than 
giving the damages to parties that have been more directly injured 
by its anticompetitive practices. Its main victims, supposedly, were 
other software companies stunted or driven out of business (anyone 
remember Stacker?) and consumers that have been overcharged.

Consumers Overcharged

    Some analysts posit that Microsoft overcharged individual 
consumers by as much as $150 on products over the years. Many 
consumers were fleeced and forced to pay Microsoft a license fee for 
Windows when buying a computer even when they didn't want to run 
Windows or even when they already had a valid license for Windows. 
Microsoft evinced its recompense to the consumer by raising prices 
on Windows XP significantly.

Obvious Solutions Ignored

    Certainly, there seem to be easy remedies that actually address 
and would affect Microsoft's monopoly power while providing 
compensation to both groups of victims. With regard to consumers, 
potential solutions may include: offering money to those that can 
show they were forced to buy unwanted Windows licenses, giving money 
back to OEMs (so they can lower prices on their non-Microsoft 
products), or giving cash to consumer groups to monitor any heavy 
handed tactics in the future. With regard to the software industry, 
individual companies that can show damages should be compensated, 
e.g., Netscape, or at the very least settlement money should go to 
the Small Business Administration (or non-government analogues) for 
them to help software start-ups, which would promote more 
competition.
    The most obvious places to send any settlement money would be to 
these victims. Otherwise the injured parties will have no redress 
for the damages wrought by Microsoft. Microsoft's current proposal 
is a little bit like offering to give money to a for-profit 
orphanage run by Microsoft as a punishment for having robbed a bank. 
Sure, some orphans may benefit (and probably will be trained to be 
future bank tellers), but Microsoft still keeps most of the money 
and the bank gets nothing. Of course, paying damages to the software 
industry would likely result in greater competition by infusing 
capital into a sector that certainly can use it. Furthermore, paying 
money to an independent watchdog consumer group would tend to 
prevent Microsoft from freely using its monopoly power in 
anticompetitive ways. I'm sure Microsoft had very conscious reasons 
for choosing the particular market of education and ignoring the two 
groups most directly affected by its anticompetitive actions, and I 
leave it to the reader to decide for themselves what those reasons 
were.
    Counterproposals Make for Bad Law and Will Further Reduce 
Competition That's why it's so fascinating to me that with market 
determination being so central and critical in the world of 
antitrust that no one is questioning the choice of market for the 
settlement. I don't know of any parents that wouldn't at least 
question a proposed punishment for their children's wrong doings, if 
they were even liberal enough to allow their children to propose 
their own punishments in the first place. Regardless, the main 
counterproposals from commentators seem merely to concentrate on 
Microsoft settling with a full cash payment instead of supplementing 
the settlement with Microsoft software. The states' proposal 
basically would force Microsoft to license its source code and keep 
producing Microsoft Office for the Apple Macintosh and maybe Linux. 
Such suggestions seem to take one step forward and two steps back.
    The step in the right direction is that Microsoft pay damages in 
cash. Last time I checked, this was still the United States of 
America and the official currency was a green-back and not a license 
for Windows. The step backward is that the state governments are 
considering requesting that Microsoft actually widen its Monopoly by 
having Microsoft enter new markets, either itself or through 
licensing, that it currently does not dominate, e.g., Linux. The 
states basically want Microsoft to open up its source code in return 
for licensing fees. Great! Now the states are basically making 
Microsoft's code essential. We've seen that even with supposedly 
open standards such as Java, HTML, etc. that individual companies 
are capable of steering and using those systems to proprietary 
effect.
    One unpropitious scenario that may result from such a forced 
licensing system is that

[[Page 25055]]

Microsoft technology would now become even more dominant. A 
significant collection of software developers on the Linux platform 
could be adversely affected by Microsoft bull dozing in with its 
Office suite; this would allow Microsoft to use Office as leverage 
to subvert the platform as it has often been accused of doing with 
the Macintosh platform. Where do you think most people (or at least 
most corporations) will buy their version of Office, Microsoft or 
some secondary licensee? And even if you buy from a secondary 
licensee, Microsoft still makes money on licensing fees as per the 
states' proposal because Microsoft would be entitled to receive a 
reasonable royalty for its intellectual property. It's as if the 
states are trying to help Microsoft spread its wares even further 
with this solution.
    I cannot recall any settlement in antitrust history where a 
solution to a monopoly was to further expand existing and/or 
potential markets with the monopolist's products. The law seems to 
require quite the contrary. 15 U.S.C.A. Sect. 2. Yet at every turn, 
counterproposals seem to actually expand the adoption and/or reach 
of Microsoft's products. Microsoft suggests donating software, which 
would further saturate the educational market. The states suggest 
entry into alternative markets from which Microsoft will benefit by 
way of increased licensing revenues. Even merely giving cash to 
schools for purchasing software (as suggested by some commentators) 
will tend only to strengthen Microsoft because it will continue to 
benefit from its monopoly position. Buying Market Share Witness its 
Xbox game console. Microsoft's Xbox retails for $299, but it is 
rumored to lose about $125 on every unit it sells. So, perhaps, it 
is not surprising that Microsoft is willing to spend money on 
capturing more of the education market.

Microsoft Gets Everything It Gives

    For example, even if Microsoft gives cash to the schools, Apple, 
likely, still will get screwed. Assuming Microsoft gives the schools 
$1 billion for computers and software, Microsoft will still win 
market share and its actual costs will remain low. Why? The schools 
will hand most of Microsoft's money right back to it to buy 
software, and the government will also end up kicking some money 
back to Microsoft. Even if half the schools buy Macintosh computers 
(which is roughly Apple's market share in the educational market), 
the schools will still buy Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office costs 
a lot more than a license for plain old Windows. And let's face it, 
if Microsoft ever kills Office on the Macintosh, it will have 
terrible consequences for the platform; and if someone were to 
speculate what a nasty monopolist would do when given a chance, then 
one might speculate that such a nasty monopolist would kill Mac 
office, which would force the remaining 4% of the computing world 
over to Windows. The point being, one way or the other, a large 
portion of any cash settlement will come back to Microsoft by way of 
software purchases, and Microsoft will still be able to leverage its 
products unfairly across markets. Furthermore, Microsoft will be 
able to write off the $1 billion settlement as a loss and recoup 
from around one third from the government. I.R.C. Sect. 162(g); Tax 
Reg. Sect. 1.162-22. In the end, a cash settlement still will cost 
Microsoft relatively little while at the same time it still will 
increase its market dominance, and the reason why remains the same. 
They are a monopoly.

Just Because You Used To, Doesn't Mean You Still Can

    A little example may be in order. If you are Acme Inc. with 1% 
of the PC market and wish to bundle your screen saver with your PCs, 
no problem. The government might even hold you up as a ``go getter'' 
in the sense that you are trying to compete to win market share. 
However, if Acme starts to win more and more market share and later 
owns 99% of the market, then giving its screen saver away for free 
might be considered to be dumping, tying, predatory pricing, and/or 
the like illegal activity because it is now a monopoly. So there are 
some things, i.e., the very kinds of things, that are encouraged in 
a competitive and open market that become illegal once you attain 
the status of a monopoly. Wolfson v. Artisans Say. Bank, 428 F.Supp. 
1315, 1321 (D.Del. 1977).
    Nothing the government is currently proposing is designed to 
change that fundamental reality. Apparently the only arguments that 
proponents of the proposed settlement provide is that at least a 
cash settlement would cause Microsoft to lose some money. However, 
that seems to miss a great irony of why Microsoft is supposedly 
being punished in the first place. As any M.B.A. will tell you, 
Microsoft, as with any other corporation, wants to own every market 
to maximize returns for its investors. Owning the education market 
would help Microsoft shore up its current dominance by getting young 
people ``hooked'' on its products. By getting kids hooked early, 
they are less likely to try other systems because the cost of 
learning a new system is not insubstantial. Furthermore, Microsoft 
certainly shows it is willing to invest money to gain market share.
    Thus, such a settlement, arguably, can be viewed as just a cost 
of doing business to garner market share. The irony is that a 
monopolist is not allowed to give products away or sell them at a 
loss.

Xbox Errata

    With the government practically abetting a convicted monopolist 
in anticompetitive practices on its core products, there seems 
little likelihood that there will be an investigation into 
Microsoft's Xbox pricing and other tactics used to enter and buy out 
the gaming market; tactics that arguably may violate other antitrust 
laws. Of course that didn't stop me from buying one as it is the 
most incredible gaming platform I've ever seen (particularly with 
Halo, the formally independent producers of which have been bought 
out by Microsoft), but I digress.
    Such predatory pricing and/or dumping tactics are normally 
illegal for a convicted monopolist. U.S.v. Columbia Steel Co., 334 
U.S. 495, 530 (1948); Western Concrete Structures Co., Inc. v. 
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., 760 F.2d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 1985). 
Thus, it is currently illegal for Microsoft to give its software to 
the educational market for free or at a price below its costs 
because they have been found to be a monopoly. However, if the 
government agrees to Microsoft's proposed settlement with the 
states, then the government will at the very least be providing 
Microsoft with an exception to this rule, or at worst be a 
collaborator in illegal predatory pricing and dumping. It is not 
even clear if DoJ may allow the states to settle with Microsoft when 
the settlement terms, arguably, further require breaking the 
antitrust laws. Setting up an end-game as beautiful as this 
certainly deserves adulation in the annals of business history. The 
lawyers at Microsoft must be dancing jigs of joy all day long at the 
thought that the government may actually require the company to 
increase its software penetration in various markets and in some 
cases be allowed to use tactics that otherwise would be illegal.
    Microsoft's proposed settlement, which is ostensibly a 
punishment for anticompetitive monopolistic practices, is refreshing 
in its outright obnoxiousness. They deserve kudos for selling their 
proposal without anyone questioning the fundamentals. Microsoft has 
managed to frame the settlement so that people are not questioning 
how, where, and/or why it should be punished, but boiled things down 
to only a question of how much it should pay.

Kids Are Irrelevant

    I suppose people are afraid to question giving money and 
resources to the schools ``for the kids.'' And don't get me wrong, 
I'm all for improving education in the United States. In this case, 
however, the kids simply don't deserve this money. That is because 
the greatest harm befell the public at large and countless 
innovative software companies (their creditors, employees, 
investors, etc.), which were driven out of business, stunted from 
pursuing markets for fear of oblivion, and/or never materialized 
because Microsoft's presence and practices were too ominous an 
obstacle. Those are the people that were primarily smashed and/or 
pushed around by Microsoft as mentioned throughout its antitrust 
trial. If any one industry was wronged and deserves recompense, it 
is the software industry as a whole (excluding Microsoft of course). 
Yet no one is even considering directing damages to the software 
industry when it was the clear victim. This is shameful; the kids 
are not more deserving here. And if you think I'm being a big meany, 
please refrain from being a big ole hypocrite and don't bitch if 
(heaven forbid) your home is burned down, and then the arsonist 
decides it would be better to give money for rebuilding your home 
``to the kids.'' Regardless of where the money should ultimately go, 
it's amazing the choice of where it should go has not been the 
subject of much, if any, debate or dispute.

Government Bargain

    The government, save for a few states, certainly doesn't seem to 
have questioned anything all that much. The DoJ's perspective seems 
to be ``we've told Bill he's been naughty, and he promised he'd be 
good.'' Microsoft has promised to be a good monopoly, however, 
Microsoft's outright cheap (offering to expend a few million in 
actual costs while claiming it's worth $1.6 billion while knowing 
the states are likely to

[[Page 25056]]

collect over $14+ billion if the case goes through trial is at the 
very least thrifty) and duplicitous proposed settlement, its 
structure, and the chosen market should be evidence itself as to how 
solemnly it regards its obligation to be a good monopoly. Generally, 
it is questionable if it is even possible to be a good monopoly. 
Supposedly a good monopoly is one that doesn't engage in 
``anticompetitive'' practices (IP right holders and their government 
sanctioned monopolies withstanding, which is a topic for another 
day). Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel, 195 F.3d 1346. That seems to 
imply that Microsoft should then engage in competitive practices. 
Yet, that's what Microsoft has been doing all along, i.e., competing 
like crazy, and why it's in trouble now. Or perhaps the government 
would like Microsoft not to be competitive so that the rest of the 
industry will be able to compete with an artificially handicapped 
monopoly? Neither solution seems to result in a truly competitive 
market. The only solution proposed, so far, that would result in a 
situation where Microsoft and the rest of the industry could all 
truly compete is where Microsoft's hold over the industry is broken.

Break-up Complimentary

    Microsoft's brilliant business practices have made it a dominant 
force. Bill Gates and company truly deserve a great deal of praise 
for demonstrating incredible business and political acumen. I'm not 
trying to be sarcastic and my praise is genuine when I say that Bill 
Gates is the best businessman ever to walk the earth. Truly the 
highest compliment the government and President Bush could pay Mr. 
Gates would be to regard him as one of the greatest American success 
stories of all time. Mr. Gates should be in an elite cadre of moguls 
who won at playing the American dream. Just like J.D. Rockefeller's 
Standard Oil, Bill Gate's Microsoft needs to be broken up. Yet the 
DoJ, after winning the antitrust case against Microsoft, has gone 
from promoting a break-up as a remedy to shunning it for a 
settlement with the apparently coincidental arrival of the Bush 
administration. Why settle a case on poor terms now? To be sure, 
there are reasons to settle after winning a case, but these usually 
revolve around the strength and cost of an appeal. The government 
claims it has a solid case on appeal, and the cost of an appeal is 
irrelevant (relative to the ramifications of a poor settlement) to 
both Microsoft and the DoJ. So, once again, why settle a case on 
such unfavorable terms after winning on the merits!?
    You don't have to be much of a conspiracy theorist to surmise 
that the Bush administration's inexplicably chummy perception of 
Microsoft has influenced the DoJ's about-face and acceptance of a 
Microsoft settlement. Certainly, the DoJ seems to have some 
interesting interpretations of what a just punishment is for a 
convicted monopoly that has driven away and/or killed off some of 
the world's most creative competitors by means other than merit.

Leveraging Honor Unwise with Monopolists

    The break-up solution at least addresses the unfair leverage 
Microsoft uses across markets by exploiting its Internet browser 
(Internet Explorer), operating system (Windows) and application 
suite (Office) line of products. The proposed settlement of giving 
money to schools will do nothing to reduce the inter-market leverage 
that Microsoft enjoys. In fact, giving the schools money for 
software and training will likely only increase the dependency those 
schools have on Microsoft's products. Furthermore, the DoJ 
settlement relies on Microsoft being ``good'' and somehow tempering 
its extremely competitive nature. Perhaps the DoJ should spread this 
new punishment policy to convicted serial murderers and set them 
free assuring us that they promised to be good in the future. No 
real argument seems to have been given as to why anyone can expect 
Microsoft to suddenly become and remain a good monopoly when it has 
thus far been incapable. However, history provides an argument to 
the contrary. Moguls are competitive. Successful companies are 
competitive. The very nature and manner of competing that was at one 
time legal, encouraged and the cause of their successes (e.g., 
lowering prices, building market share, driving lesser competitors 
out of business) have (in many instances) become illegal practices 
once they were found to be monopolies. Standard Oil Co. of New 
Jersey v. U.S., 221 U.S. 1 (1911); Wolfson, 428 F.Supp. 1321; Intel, 
195 F.3d 1346. As such, moguls and their successful companies are 
more likely to continue their practices simply from inertia. 
Certainly, Microsoft's latest acts seem indicative of 
anticompetitive recidivism: dropping Java from Windows XP will not 
help SUN; selling Xboxes at a loss seems to leverage its financial 
power derived from one market to move into another; disabling non-
Microsoft web browsers from accessing MSN demonstrates that even if 
Microsoft makes its proprietary source code variations to HTML open, 
it still likely will induce users to stick with Microsoft branded 
browsers rather than being hassled and jostled from services during 
the lag time it will take for licensees to implement any new 
proprietary ``features'' to obtain parity with the official 
Microsoft version; and using heavy handed licensing tactics in its 
Software Assurance Program (SAP--make up your own jokes) has 
garnered wide criticism for forcing a licensing strategy to make 
users upgrade more frequently than desired.
    If history serves as any lesson, a competitive mogul like Bill 
Gates will not become less competitive until he's declared an 
official winner and has no choice but to stop competing. There seems 
to be only one way to be declared a winner in the U.S. and that's 
through break-up as enjoyed by J.D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. 
Standard Oil, 221 U.S. 1. There is no reason to believe that Bill 
Gates and Microsoft will stop employing anticompetitive tactics 
until they are forced to stop competing with the full force of 
monopoly power. Anything less than a forced break-up will leave Bill 
Gates and Microsoft with the status of being mere contenders not 
important, successful, or dangerous enough to warrant a government 
break-up. It's doubtful Bill Gates could be satisfied with such a 
runners-up title. Thus, the government should provide Mr. Gates and 
Microsoft with the closure they deserve and declare them winners 
officially. In a certain sense, I believe Mr. Gates would be able to 
enjoy his victory having fought the good fight. If not, he can try 
to become the first person in the U.S. to have two of his companies 
broken up by the government.
    I will not rehash why Microsoft's proposal for (please place 
tongue in cheek) ``justice'' (please release tongue now--thank you) 
is akin to sentencing a serial murderer to work as an executioner at 
a prison and trying to pass it off as a ``community service.'' As 
long as Microsoft is allowed to exist as a monopoly, it will be 
nearly impossible to punish it in any meaningful way so as to 
provide disincentive from abusing its power.



MTC-00008671

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Department of Justice is not acting in the best interest of 
this country to pursue an antitrust accusation against the Microsoft 
Corporation. Microsoft is not a monopoly. They are an independent 
competitive corporation that has provided innovative and beneficial 
products and services to the businesses and consumers of American 
and the world.
    Why does the DOJ think profit means corruption? Microsoft is 
simply our American system of business working in its finest form.
    For the DOJ to listed to a handful of Microsoft competitors and 
their claim that they have been restricted from operation in a free 
marketplace is just irresponsible. We have a free marketplace and it 
is the responsibility of the DOJ to keep it that way, by allowing 
Microsoft, and other corporations like it to continue operating and 
exploring and creating new and exciting products and services, 
without interference or restriction from the Department of Justice.
    Keep America Free! Keep our way of life and our way of American 
commerce unencumbered by useless and destructive litigation. Don't 
let the whining complaints of the few hurt the productivity and 
opportunity of the many.
    Jay Mathews
    10418 Sedgebrook Dr.
    Riverview, FL 33569



MTC-00008672

From: DONALD WRAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I AM NOT AN ARDENT MICROSOFT FAN * * * BUT LET'S GET THIS THING 
SETTLED. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS REASONABLE. 
WHY SHOULD THE STATES ATTEMPT TO HOLD THIS UP. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT 
THE COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT THAT WERE SO OPPOSED TO MICROSOFT HAVE 
DONE VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES...SUCH AS AOL. THE ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY 
THE TECH STOCKS HAVE ALREADY TAKEN A BEATING. LETS MOVE AHEAD 
INSTEAD OF STILL TRYING TO KILL THE GOOSE

[[Page 25057]]

THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG. IN SPITE OF EVERYTHING, MICROSOFT OF THE 
PAST YEARS, HAS DONE MORE FOR THE TECH ECEONOMY THAN ANY OTHER 
COMPANY. SETTLE NOW.
    Donald W. Wray
    450 Treasure Island Cswy. Apt #207
    Treasure Island, Florida 33706
    [email protected]



MTC-00008673

From: Barbara J Cline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    3621 Oakwood Drive
    Bettendorf, IA 52722
    January 4, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to offer my views on the antitrust lawsuit that has 
been going on between Microsoft and the federal government. I have 
been reading about this case in the Wall Street Journal, and it is 
one that I have never understood or agreed with. I support your 
decision to settle.
    The case has had no positive effects, and the negative effects 
have been many. Schools are being hurt, the stock market has been 
affected, and the economy has dwindled as a result of the technology 
industry being hindered during the past three years while this case 
has gone on. In addition, the whole idea of the case is wrong in 
that it is stepping on the development of ideas, and this is a poor 
message for the government to be sending. Our economy is really 
struggling at the moment, and the government should be trying to 
find ways to stimulate it rather than ways to keep it down. Settling 
with Microsoft was a step in the right direction.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Cline
    cc: Sen. Charles Grassley



MTC-00008674

From: DUANE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that a decision will be made in the near future 
regarding penalties that will be assessed against Microsoft. During 
my working career I spent 30 years in engineering and management at 
Boeing.
    We used IBM and Microsoft software to run our computers for all 
kinds of design, analysis and marketing acivities. I am convinced 
that Microsoft provided the best software for many of our 
applications but we did use software from other companies for 
specific applications.
    I urge you not to break up the company or force them to release 
code to other companies. If they are required to release source code 
it would be no different than Boeing being required to release the 
software they use to design their airplanes and spacecraft. 
Microsoft has invested a large share of their profits to develop new 
software and expand the capabilities of existing software programs. 
They do not pay dividends to their stockholders, they put it back 
into research and development. It would not be fair to give 
companies software code that they could have developed themselves 
were they inclined to invest their profits in research and 
development. Microsoft did not become the largest software company 
by taking advantage of other companies, they became the largest 
because they had a great management team with a strong vision of 
what people wanted to do with personal computers.
    I sincerely hope that your decision will take into consideration 
the millions of personal computer users who have benefitted from the 
investments Microsoft has made in their software programs. Software 
for our computers will become much more expensive and less robust if 
Microsoft is required to release source code for Windows and other 
software programs.
    Anyone can make a difference,
    Everyone should try !!
    Duane Edmonds
    [email protected]
    307-754-9396



MTC-00008675

From: Winslade, Winston
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    I would like to express that this case should be settled today 
so that MS can move forward in providing low cost innovative 
solutions to the public. An engineer by schooling and involved in an 
industry that produced computer systems for mission critical control 
in the process industry, I know the pain suffered by users that were 
stuck (necessarily so because of no standards) with proprietary 
operating systems. It was not until MS introduce a more robust OS 
that could be used for industry that this industry started to move 
towards standards. This at a cost in the multi-millions of dollars 
to industrial users.
    The point is, without MS consumers would have experienced this 
same costly dilemma. That fact we have plug and play and an 
unlimited selection of application software that can be installed by 
even the novice user, is attributed to MS's leadership in the 
industry.
    Quite frankly, the consumer has never been hurt by any of MS 
practices. In fact, the consumers has low cost software and OS' 
because of MS. This case should never have been heard in the first 
place.
    The opinions expressed here are that of the writer and do not 
necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer.



MTC-00008676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Why does the Government always try to brake down a company for 
getting big and making a profit. Isn't that the American Wau. LEAVE 
Microsoft alone.



MTC-00008677

From: elizabeth jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  12:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone! Hurray for Bill Gates.
    E. Jones, MD



MTC-00008678

From: Cris Von Wald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that I fully support the proposed DOJ settlement. It 
is time to move on and does no one any good to continue to draw this 
process out.
    cvonwald



MTC-00008679

From: andy greenwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please finalize the agreement with Microsoft as it stands and 
let's get on with business. It's a competitive world, let's let it 
stay that way. Microsoft is one of the world's great innovators. Let 
their competitors ``compete'' with new and better products if they 
don't like the way things are.
    Andy Greenwood



MTC-00008680

From: Dr. Manton Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Settlement
    The settlement between the US Justice Department and nine states 
seems fair and just. Given the downturn in the economy, there is a 
pressing need to settle the litigation. Customers and taxpayers 
should and will benefit. Global competition should keep all players 
on their best in providing low cost and quality service and 
products. This settlement does not mean the end of monitoring. 
Global competitors, customers and government can bring complaints at 
any time and place.
    Manton C. Gibbs, Ph.D.
    Associate Director of the American Society for Competitiveness.



MTC-00008681

From: Andy or Gail Hatle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is damn well time to get off the back of Microsoft. If we, 
the consumers aren't happy with it, we can stop using it. We are not 
slaves to Bill Gates. How much have we wasted on useless persecution 
of a software producer, and how much had we spent going after bin 
Laden before Sept. 11, 2001? Let's get our priorities straight and 
consider the good of the country instead of following the path of 
Bill Clinton trying to repay his campaign contributors. We need real 
leadership instead of playing stupid political games.
    Sincerely,
    Andy Hatle
    [email protected]



MTC-00008682

From: Dave Tomesch
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25058]]

Date: 1/4/02  1:07pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear To Whom it May Concern;
    I have been using Microsoft Software for several years with 
great enthusiasm. I like their software and the support I get from 
buying their products. I do not feel they have a Monopoly in any way 
compared to Bell or Hydro or Oil Or Gas or the Lumber Industry. I am 
certain that there are many Hackers, Malicious programmers that are 
Jealous of Microsofts Success and therefore only a monitary discount 
on products or services is required to settle any further waste of 
TAXPAYERS money on this CASE! PS I have used Atari products in the 
Past with 1000's spent on them with little or no help from the 
company! They definetly had a monopoly on their products in the 70's 
and 80's along with Apple and you did not see any lawsuits then!!!. 
If you really wanna know what most consumers think, they think Unix 
and Internet programming companies are jealous of Microsofts 
successes and several Democrates took advantage of Taxpayers dollars 
to push a Insufficient evidence case against microsoft compared to 
reality. Reality is Oracle has or had a monopoly on Internet Servers 
(WHERE's THEIR MONOPOLY CASE???, You can use their own commercials 
on TV against them(we have 100% of the Marketplace on servers was 
their slogan!) The list could go on and on so I hope the Justice 
Department ends this case soon, give Microsoft a slap on the wrist 
along with Oracle, Sun Microsystems etc and get on with Consumer 
Products from all the US and Canadian Companies. Setup a department 
for Monopolies in any field of US. Commerce) Because in Reality 
Microsoft could move to Canada and what CASE would you have then? 
US. Laws do not work in Canada or we wouldn't have BELL CANADA or 
PetroCan ETC, and their are many more real big monopolies around the 
WORLD! (GOLD Companies ETC So putting the computer Industry in 
perspective!!!!!! if the key, I owned an atari 400, 800, xl800, 
1200, Atari ST, Atari STE, Apple, IBM Computers etc. etc. You can 
see Microsoft came out on top but maybe the future some other 
company might do better so let the industry continue and Maybe those 
new Tablet PCs made by other companes might be the next big thing 
who knows!!!.
    Sorry for the long PS but the Justice department should really 
be looking into why Oracle shares went from 25 dollars to 130 while 
Clinton was in office and back down again! There is a real monopoly 
of servers there and get with reality. I dont own a microsoft 
Monitor(its a clone) I don't own a Microsoft printer its from HP, I 
dont own a Miscrosft scanner its from IBM, I don't own a Microsoft 
Hard drive its from Western Digitial, all my software is 80% owned 
by other companies, Disney, 3D0, etc, 15% is microsoft Kids games or 
Operating systems, SO IN REALITY there is NO MONOPOLY HERE!!!!
    SO WHERE IS THE MONOPOLY CASE IN MY HOUSE????? NO WHERE!! ITS 
NON EXISTENT!!!
    Dave Tomesch
    (You can quote me if you like!)



MTC-00008683

From: Dave Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:07pm
Subject: DOJ:
    DOJ:
    Please stop the witch hunt of Microsoft being orchestrated by 
its competitors and their agent polititions. The whole issue 
revolves around the preposterous definition of the ``relevant 
market''.
    David L. Rice



MTC-00008684

From: RC Fullerton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    This lawsuit with Microsoft as defendent has gone on too long 
and now that there is a chance for a settlement, the action for 
settlement should be taken by the Court. RC Fullerton Canyon Lake, 
Texas



MTC-00008685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Civil Servants,
    The agreed upon Microsoft Settlement is just and the government 
needs to move on. This lawsuit has done nothing to help consumers 
from day one (Microsoft's products have always been fairly priced) 
and was initiated to protect competitors that could not compete with 
Microsoft. Agreed, Microsoft is a tough competitor but the reasons 
that it has succeeded are not do to monopolistic activities but to a 
new business vision on how to survive in a fast moving technology 
world. They pour more profits back into research and have the lowest 
paid management team in the industry. They operate the company like 
a graduate school where the rewards are stock options versus 
degrees. Their workers are highly motivated.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert J. Hynes



MTC-00008686

From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sir
    Please be advised that I think the settlement agreement with 
Microsoft is fair and the litigation should be ended as soon as 
possible.
    We have seen how the asbestos, tobacco, cigarette, breast 
implant and pharaceutical litigations have caused the demise of many 
fine companies. For the sake of the country we do not need excessive 
and oppressive litigation that will serve to protract the recession 
and bring about the demise of many fine companies.
    Would like to suggest that you take proactive measures to 
discourage lawsuits at all levels. Finalizing the MicroSoft 
Settlement would be a fine start.
    Thank you
    Frank Danaher



MTC-00008687

From: john j boyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not delay the settlement further. It is not in the 
best interest of the nation or consumers to drag this on any longer.
    Sincerely,
    Marsha E. Boyle
    Florida



MTC-00008688

From: Scott Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a satisfied customer of Microsoft for over a decade, and as a 
dis-interested third party, I'd like to comment that the entire DOJ 
action against Microsoft disgusts me. Microsoft has, in the past, 
done much more public good than evil, at least from my viewpoint. 
Before Microsoft, interactivity between software applications was 
practically non-existent, and competitive products couldn't use each 
other's data. With Microsoft's so-called monopoly, my productivity 
has increased dramatically because I can now integrate one 
application's data into another application very easily. As far as 
I'm concerned, Microsoft should be allowed to continue operating as 
they have been until they actually cause harm to me or the American 
public. The only entities they've hurt are their competitors, and 
that's the way capitalism is supposed to work * * *
    Regards,
    Scott Brooks
    1519 Chardonnay Dr.
    Harker Heights, TX 76548



MTC-00008689

From: Jim Baskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have not seen consumers hurt by Microsoft's action, and I have 
not seen it proven in court. It has been disappointing to have our 
government fight against what I think is a great company, seemingly 
expressing the views of Microsoft competitors in court (not consumer 
views). As a citizen and taxpayer I ask that you end this litigation 
as soon as possible. The current Microsoft offer is a HUGE benefit 
to the nation.
    Thanks,
    Jim Baskin
    Senior Consultant--MCS Microsoft Telecom Practice
    Phone (425) 705-3749 Pager 800-895-6003
    ``You can stomp the grapes twice as fast, but that doesn't 
create a 20 year Tawny Port in 10 years.''



MTC-00008690

From: Saddiq, Tareq
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter to lend my support to the settlement 
reached between Microsoft

[[Page 25059]]

and the Department of Justice. This lawsuit is just a way for 
competitors of Microsoft to feel good about their lack of success 
and block any further achievements of Microsoft. Even though I 
believe this suit should not have been brought about, it is better 
to resolve this issue and move ahead, rather than spending another 
three years in court.
    Microsoft has earned its success along the way. It has provided 
its consumers with quality care and service, which has tremendously 
helped in its worldwide accomplishments. Microsoft opponents have 
suggested terms that appear to stifle trade, such as uniform 
licensing price agreements. Even so, Microsoft has acknowledged the 
terms so that it can move on. This waste of American tax dollars is 
pointless. To stop this from continuing any further, all action that 
is taking place at the federal level be brought to an end.
    Sincerely,
    Tareq Saddiq,
    Senior Network Architect, Phone: (608) 278-7888 or (608) 225-
8741
    CC: `Tammy.Baldwin(a)mail.house.gov'



MTC-00008691

From: Steve Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Steve Miller (sw [email protected])
    From the outset I disagreed with the Government's prosecution of 
Microsoft. The success of any operating system platform is 
determined by those of use who write software for it. For years 
nearly eight million developers have written software for the 
Windows platform. Since so many developers have chosen to write for 
Windows the consumer had more applications from which to choose. 
Allowing the consumer to pick what they felt was fight for them.
    Microsoft Windows has been far more open and allowed consumers 
more choice than other operating systems. Other operating system 
vendors give you what they think you should have rather than 
listening to the consumer and providing the features important to 
the consumer. Since, the settlement is in place I think it should 
stand. While I continue to think that it is unnecessary it is better 
than the attempts to break up Microsoft. I think the break up 
attempt was a contributing factor to the soft economic conditions we 
are now in since our economy is technology driven. Any further 
attempts to limit Microsoft will only hurt the economy more and 
punish those eight million developers who have chosen to make their 
living using Microsoft technologies.
    Thank you,
    Steve Miller
    425 Kemper Drive North
    Madison, TN 37115
    (615) 612-1919
    sw [email protected]
    Steve Miller (sw [email protected])



MTC-00008692

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 4, 2002
    I believe that the Department of Justice should settle the 
Microsoft case. The agreement reached by the federal government and 
nine states with Microsoft addresses the reduced liability found in 
the Court of Appeals ruling.
    Further litigation is unnecessary, and harmful for the American 
spirit.
    Sincerely,
    Valerie Hines
    [email protected]



MTC-00008693

From: Mehran Behdjat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    DOJ
    I believe that the most recent settlement between DOJ and 
Microsoft is fair and equitable and no more letigation is necessary. 
Continuation of letigation against Microsoft is detremental to the 
fragile U.S. economy and will hurt the technology and innovation as 
a whole.
    Sincerely,
    Mehran Behdjat



MTC-00008694

From: david faibish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--CASH ONLY!
    The penalty paid by microsoft should NOT be an in-kind 
contribution (of software, hardware, or services).
    Recipients should be free to choose who and what they buy with 
the proceeds of any settlement.
    Especially in the education marketplace which is one of the few 
where microsoft faces real competition (ie Apple); a ``forced'' gift 
that is platform-specific _undermines_ not enhances the very 
competition which is the goal of the penalty in the first place!
    regards:dlf



MTC-00008695

From: Chris Cleary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    People are envious of the success of large companies and 
individuals such as Microsoft and Bill Gates, respectively. This 
should not cloud the vision of the Department of Justice. Do not 
break up Microsoft.
    Leave the company alone, solve real crime, and go about you 
business.
    Breaking up any company that has been made large and prosperous 
from people voting with their wallets is socialism. There are no 
barriers that Microsoft competitors have to surmount that have not 
been surmounted before. They need more creativity as they lack 
ideas. Microsoft's competition has not been outlawed as with the 
U.S. Postal Service and First Class mail; it is merely uncreative.
    Leave Microsoft alone and go after the real criminals.
    Chris Cleary
    Fairfield, Ohio



MTC-00008696

From: DENNIS BROWN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Microsoft continues to abuse its' customers, the general public, 
and the laws of commerce in our great nation. Their arrogance is 
most apparent in the way in which they have launched the latest 
version of their operating system and its' integrated software. 
Microsoft has flaunted the very settlement and suggestions of the 
DOJ and the prior trial judge. The new version of the operating 
system is even more anti-competitive! Please reconsider, on behalf 
of the American people, your settlement offer.
    Dennis Brown
    [email protected]
    Kaneland High School
    Maple Park, IL



MTC-00008697

From: James T. Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please approve the settlement and let all parties move on with 
business.
    J.murphy



MTC-00008698

From: Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice, With the settlement of the Microsoft case 
nearing the point where the District Court will rule whether or not 
this settlement is in the best interest of the consumer public, I 
wish to urge that it is.
    The proposed settlement with the DOJ and 9 states is tough, fair 
and appropriate. As a consumer, I have never felt that I was harmed 
in any way by Microsoft's business tactics. I believe that 
standardization is actually the consumer's best friend, assuming 
that the quality of the standard is upheld. I believe that Microsoft 
works very hard and invests millions, or even billions of dollars to 
ensure that their products are the best.
    As an investor, I have lost significant amounts of personal 
wealth in the past 18+ months, partly due to the economic downturn, 
but also in large part because of the case against Microsoft, which 
drove the price of Microsoft stock, and the stock of nearly every 
other company down. I have always maintained that the pressure on 
Microsoft stock, which is so widely held in private accounts as well 
as institutional funds, has had a large role in eroding our economy 
during the past couple of years.
    As a taxpayer, I feel that more than enough has been spent on 
this case. In the interest of the taxpaying public, I think it is 
time this case were settled and put to rest for good. I wish the 
other 9 states attorney generals who have not agreed to this 
settlement would also put aside political aspirations and act on 
behalf of the public as well, and join in this settlement agreement. 
Private interest groups who oppose this settlement do not have the 
majority of public interest at heart- for them it is a personal 
vendetta.
    Suffice it to say that as a consumer, and investor, a taxpayer 
and as an American, I feel this settlement is appropriate and 
necessary so that we all might get on with our lives and with the 
business of

[[Page 25060]]

strengthening the American economy. In order to do this, one key 
step is to put this case to rest. Please include my sentiments as 
part of the public record for the District Court to review.
    God Bless America.
    Sincerely,
    Kirk Werner
    Duvall, Washington



MTC-00008699

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One thing more: a lot of this complaint by Microsoft competitors 
to the Government is beause they cannot compete in price and 
performance. Therefore we believe Microsoft has been punished for 
being efficient. The country does not need this sort of action by 
the Government. It stifles business innovation and loses jobs. Mr. 
and Mrs. Anthony J. Maiale 941-597-5864. 672 92nd Avenue, North, 
Naples FL 34108



MTC-00008700

From: Pete Detskey (ELN)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the anti-trust settlement that has been 
proposed with Microsoft. I write as both a small business owner and 
as a consumer of Microsoft software products.
    Capitalism works only when competition exists. Justice must be 
served in regards to the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement does not guarantee competition for new 
companies; it does not promote benefits to consumers.
    One flaw with the proposed settlement is that it leaves open too 
many loopholes on what code is not required to be made open to other 
business seeking to develop new products. It also seems to have a 
sunset provision on when the oversight committee will disband in 
several years. We need a permanent solution to the Microsoft 
monopoly problem.
    The nine states that did not sign on to the agreement have a 
better plan on promoting competition. For example, they require that 
Microsoft Office products be ported to rival operating systems.
    For consumers, consider the recent warning that the FBI issued 
regarding the security holes in the Win XP operating system. I think 
it is awful that the FBI has to issue consumer warnings--at taxpayer 
expense--because of Microsoft negligence. In a competitive 
environment, no company would release a software product with 
serious flaws; that action would risk going out of business. But in 
a monopoly, Microsoft has no fears and will bully everyone around as 
it sees fit.
    Justice must be served on the anti-competitive behavior of 
Microsoft. The current settlement offer does not safeguard 
competition in the marketplace. It provides no benefits to consumers 
with flawed software products.
    Justice is NOT served in the proposed settlement. I urge that an 
alternative settlement be proposed.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Z. Detskey
    Tucson, Arizona
    (520) 297-7289



MTC-00008701

From: Magnus Hammar Borsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well, maybe this is totaly unimportant for you. But I wanted to 
make myself heard. Since I am not an american citizen, I do not have 
any constitutional rights to express myself in this matter.
    But this is as important to me as it is for any american. 
Microsoft is not an ``american'' corporation, it is an international 
corporation and most people working for Microsoft are NOT americans 
(some are as me, swede's. Not to mention all programers from India * 
* *).
    Maybe you as americans, for once, should ask other nations what 
they think about Microsoft? And just maybe you should try to addept 
to others, instead of trying to change those who think different 
from you? Sooner or later your pride might be your fall, and that 
would truly be a sad end for a beutifull nation as yours.
    Magnus Hammar



MTC-00008702

From: David G. Odom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge in the above settlement case:
    I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found 
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating 
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version, 
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of 
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing 
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products 
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by 
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the 
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth. To believe 
that Microsoft is anything BUT a monopoly in the micro-computer 
market, is nonsense. Looking at anyone's PCs or any companies micro-
servers will tell you otherwise and the truth.
    Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is inadequate and 
that stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such 
tactics from being used in the future. I believe the proposed 
settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: 
halting Microsoft's illegal conduct, promoting competition in the 
industry, and depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    I would be happy to discuss those controls if you need input 
from the ``regular public'' that has to suffer through the Microsoft 
monopoly environment.
    Sincerely,
    David G. Odom
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00008703

From: JHWallis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Continue the trend away from the anti-business/anti-capitalist 
tenor left behind by the previous administration. The settlement is 
sufficient.



MTC-00008704

From: Nathan Vick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I would like to add my voice in favour of breaking Microsoft 
into an Operating System business and an Applications business. I 
think that is the only effective way to get Microsoft make windows 
more extensible for third parties, more standards-compliant (without 
embrace-and-extend) and more thoroughly documented. I think breaking 
them up is the only effective way to accomplish these goals because 
it is the only way that produces and fast-acting economic incentive.
    Nathan
    [email protected]
    Nathan Vick
    Programmer/Analyst
    Capilano College



MTC-00008705

From: PCCorral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For many of us who are in the PC industry we have know all along 
that this lawsuit was motivated, funded and perpetuated by Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle, the Sansoni legal eagles and other Microsoft 
competitors. Though there was some merit to the complaints about 
Microsoft's OEM pricing policies, those practices have been 
discontinued and remedied.
    The one who is really being hurt by the continuation of this 
case is the consumer. Microsoft's competitors don't want Microsoft 
to be able to add free new features to its software. But it's the 
consumer who would be hurt by this. It is time for this case to be 
settled. Do ever consumer out there a favor and settle it!



MTC-00008706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Drop the suit. It is a waste of money
    REGoodwill Jr



MTC-00008707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Department of justices I am writing to you concerning the 
Microsoft settlement. I think the settlement is fair to all, and any 
future litigation will only hurt the consumer. I am disabled and on 
a limited income, (in some ways we all are, on limited income that 
is)

[[Page 25061]]

and Microsoft has help me buy some products I might not otherwise be 
able to afford. I do own some Microsoft stock, which if the company 
was left alone the little bit I have invested will help my income 
someday. thank you for this opportunity to share with you.
    Ed etzwiler



MTC-00008708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the current proposed DOJ settlement. Let's not 
get tangled in further litigation. Thanks



MTC-00008709

From: Brooks, Steve
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved.
    Steven J. Brooks
    Senior Systems Analyst, D.B.A.
    ADP COBRA Services, Inc
    wk. (770)-619-7200 ext. 1342
    cell. (770)-367-1759



MTC-00008710

From: jack timmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional for over 20 years, I'm shocked that 
the US government is still trying to sue Microsoft. Microsoft has 
contributed more to this country than all the other computer 
companies combined. Instead of a well deserved award, you are 
punishing them, obviously on behalf of their competitors in Utah 
(Novell), California (Sun/Oracle) and New York (IBM/AOL).
    Stop trying to kill the goose that continues to lay golden eggs!
    Shame on you for supporting their competitors in such a 
painfully biased and unfair way!!! It's incredibly obvious what a 
hack job this is.
    Jack Timmons
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00008711

From: Mister Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Could you please advise as to the deadline for the public to 
submit comments on the Proposed Final Judgement? Is it Sunday, 6 Jan 
2002 which is 60 days after the 6 Nov 2001 posting of the Judgement? 
Is it Tuesday, 15 Jan 2002 which is 60 days after the 15 Nov 2001 
posting of the Competitive Impact Statment?
    Thank you.
    Mister Thorne



MTC-00008713

From: Robert Westerberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's stop wasting taxpayers' money and making life difficult 
for one of the great companies of the technological age whose 
continued existence is of paramount importance for the economy of 
the United States and the progress of global freedom. Bill and Paul 
took a chance way back when, in the true spirit of American 
entrepreurship, when computers were the toys of academia. Now 
Microsoft is being punished because they have been successful beyond 
anyone's dreams or imagination.
    Yes, I have a vested interest in Microsoft. It is the heart of 
our retirement plan. Stop jerking Mr. Gates around just because some 
whiners didn't take risks when the Internet Age was in its infancy. 
That is the real reason there is only one truly capable operating 
system for computers in the world today.
    Affirmative action is of the past--be it for people or 
corporations. Countless millions have been spent for lawyers in this 
matter so far. This should not become another AT & T attorney 
welfare scam.
    Hands off Microsoft!
    Robert Westerberg, faithful shareholder since 1998.



MTC
-00008714

From: Dillon Dale Civ OC-ALC/LGPA
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  2:30pm
Subject: Comment on settlement
    Dear sir or madam
    Please be advised that I do not agree with the current 
settlement as proposed by the Dept of Justice.
    In summary, what I see is this, Microsoft owns the only 
trainstation, that is the OS. It knows where it layed the tracks and 
how the tracks operate, (internal workings of OS) this gives them a 
HUGE advantage on software development. No one else knows this as 
well as Microsoft and it protects and uses this knowledge to it's 
sole advantage.
    I am by trade an accountant. I have dabbled in computer systems 
for years, learning to program in various programming languages. I 
can remember Microsofts first set of side products that had direct 
impact on me.
    QuickBasic was the applications name, it was a wonderful product 
and it was all due to competition with Borland and the great 
programs that they had. (Borland lost a lot of ground when Microsoft 
switched from DOS to Windows version 95. Borland no longer makes a 
Basic programming language.)
    I can remember the big switch when Microsoft introduced it's 
Windows operating system and it's suite of Office products. Suddenly 
the things that I knew the most lotus, peachcal, supercal etc... 
spreadsheets disappeared from the store shelfs. Everyone had to 
learn a new interface, you couldn't share spreadsheets because of 
all the things Microsoft did to make it hard to switch from their 
product to other products. (This was no doubt by design and still is 
by design.) Microsoft now totally dominates the market when it comes 
to spreadsheets, but they still lag behind some of the original 
spreadsheets ability.
    Where our office went from lotus and supercal we acquired more 
work, not less, MS Excel created more keystrokes for us and a 
decrease in productivity. The macro ability was greatly reduced and 
it created for us a very large problem, we had to basically carry 
two spreadsheets. One DOS based from ages ago and the other Windows 
related (MS Excel). In short we still have not upgraded the majority 
of our spreadsheets because Excel does not do as good of job.
    In our office we use programs that where written in Basic or 
GWbasic many years ago. This ability and language was provided by 
Microsoft or IBM with the purchase of an OS many years ago. 
Microsoft no longer provides this type of program with the purchase 
of the OS, I admit I do find it strange that they will add an 
internet browser for free, but won't keep a language that was a 
standard feature of the OS for years and years. I am currently 
writing Java based programs to replace the programs written in Basic 
or GWbasic many years ago. If Microsoft is allowed to drive Java out 
of business or goes to big lengths to make sure it does not work 
with it's system then nothing I can do will replace those programs 
that we do business with now. I do not have the money to buy the 
solution from Microsoft. If you pay close attention to the 
Government you will find that a lot of Government facilities are now 
stuck with the older version of Internet Explorer (version 5.5 
service pack 2), because a lot of Government pages are written to 
work with Java. The newer version of IE (version 6) will not work 
with Java. Why would Microsoft do this? Is it now the most efficient 
product when viewing the web? How much will the Government have to 
spend to correct these problems? Or will the Government be stuck 
using Windows 5.5 with service pack 2 until MS decides it won't want 
to support it any longer? If they give it away as part of the OS 
package, then it shouldn't be a tool used to destroy the business of 
others. It should be made to work with other things out there.
    To me it is just like buying an OS for a computer that says it 
is designed for use in any IBM compatible PC, but it won't work with 
Seagate Hard Drives because our company owns Western Digital. BTW 
it's about the only OS available as it has driven every other OS out 
of the market, used it's OS to capture market share it does not 
deserve, because of unfair competition and it's insider knowledge on 
the OS. How does it benefit the public? We have seen that the courts 
ruled it was a monopoly.
    Now it's up to you the DOJ to fix the tracks so that other 
trains can run in and out of that trainstation without being 
derailed, your settlement leaves a lot to be desired and actually 
rewards Microsoft, does not force them to retreat from the practices 
that have hurt so many in the past and cripples innovation.
    Dale Dillon



MTC-00008715

From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    It has come to my attention that nine misdirected states are 
attempting to thwart the Department of Justice's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. After reading the proposed remedies, I have 
concluded that

[[Page 25062]]

these are fair and beneficial to the consumer in the long run. In 
the short run, it will serve to employ hundreds of lawyers to 
determine what courses of action are acceptable for the company to 
pursue.
    When the nine states continue to whine about these remedies not 
being enough, they are truly letting their ignorance, lack of 
understanding of the market, and greed show through. As an example: 
Apple makes the only ``crash proof'' desktop computer on the market. 
Apple has a 100% market share for that market. Apple refuses to 
allow other vendors to manufacture compatible ``crash proof'' 
hardware. This Apple monopoly locks out any and all competitors, 
raises the market price of Apple hardware, reduces the market share 
of ``crash proof'' systems, and hence due to that minimal market 
size, discourages developers from creating competing products for 
the Apple platform. Each of these steps TRULY harms consumers. Were 
it not for these foolish policies, Apple would be a true competitor 
to Microsoft compatible computers today.
    In the days of the USSR (command & control) where only the 
government made automobiles, were they the best buys in the country 
for a good reason? Yes, it was due to their being the only 
automobile available to the few that could afford them. If the 
dissenting states were truly worried about consumers and 
competition, they would be working through the DOJ to force Apple to 
open their market. The fact they are not simply demonstrates their 
ulterior motives.
    The last 2 large anti-trust cases in U.S. history (AT & T, and 
IBM) had the unintended and ugly effect of turning these two symbols 
of American technology into bumbling giants void of any current 
serious innovation. Please look at the meaningless shell that is now 
AT & T before you decide to drag this case on further.
    Best regards,
    Michael Patrick Chaffey, OCP, CPA
    17516 NE 138th St.
    Redmond, WA 98052
    DISCLOSURE NOTE: I own less than 1000 shares of Microsoft stock, 
and have used the company's software products for over 10 years.



MTC-00008717

From: john himes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:46pm
Subject: microsoft
    Please let the micrsoft settlement stand and let our economy 
recover. This recession started the day Judge Jackson tried to break 
up micrsoft. It was a stupid move then and remains the same today.
    Thank you
    John E. Himes
    102 Melvin Ave.
    Catonsville Md.
    21228



MTC-00008718

From: Lynn B. Boman Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Department of Justice,
    I am writing you today to express my feelings in regards to the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
on November 2nd. I am anxious to see this dispute resolved, so I 
oppose further action against Microsoft. This settlement is fair, 
contains provisions that foster competition, and is good for the 
technology industry. Microsoft has pledged to share more information 
with other companies and give consumers more choices. Under this 
agreement, Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make 
it easier to install non- Microsoft software and must disclose 
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows.
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Thank you for your time,
    Lynn B Boman Jr.



MTC-00008719

From: Chris Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  2:57pm
Subject: microsoft problem
    hi there:
    I was told that I could send an email to you, offering up my 2 
cents worth on the microsoft fiasco--I believe that this company's 
business practices are beyond irresponsible--I would go so far as to 
say that their pure greed has put them in a position wherein one of 
their biggest goals is to squash any and all competition--which I 
think is a sorry state of affairs at best. with the situation as it 
stands now we have a STUPIDLY HUGE percentage of the computer 
software being controlled by one company: microsoft. apple remains 
the only real competition. the LOSERS are consumers like myself--who 
KNOWS where we might be today if microsoft had acted legally over 
these past years?
    Since microsoft has already been found guilty of multiple 
antitrust law violations, my opinion is that they should receive an 
extremely harsh penalty indeed; as severe as possible within the 
limits of the law. what I've read of the current situation (a fair 
bit) only shows the government willing to settle for a light 'slap 
on the wrist'.
    Let's have some JUSTICE!!!
    Thanks for listening,
    Chris long



MTC-00008720

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO DOJ,
    IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 
BROUGHT FORTH BY THE DOJ AND NINE STATES SEEMS MORE THAN ENOUGH. I 
HAVE HAD A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CONSUMER HAS BEEN HARMED. 
DID WE PAY TOO MUCH FOR MICROSOFT PRODUCTS? REPORTS IN THE MEDIA 
STATE WE MAY HAVE OVERPAID 20 TO 30 DOLLARS FOR WINDOWS. IF IT'S AN 
ISSUE OF THIS AMOUNT, PERHAPS THE INDIVIDUAL HAS MORE PROBLEMS THAN 
OWNING A COMPUTER. THE CONSUMER IS ME. THIS LITIGATION WILL NOT HELP 
ME IN ANY WAY. I DID NOT ASK FOR IT AND I DON'T WANT IT.
    LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS ABOUT MICROSOFT'S COMPETITION ALWAYS 
LAGGING BEHIND THE CURVE. ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS BUILD A BETTER 
MOUSE TRAP. THIS CASE HAS HURT OUR ECONOMY AND INVESTORS. IF IT 
DOESN'T END NOW, I'M GOING TO BLAME SOME PEOPLE AND NOT BUY THEIR 
PRODUCTS...NOT VOTE FOR THEM ETC. WHO'S GOVERNMENT IS THIS ANYWAY? 
IF WE DON'T STOP THIS CASE NOW, PERHAPS THE DOOR WILL OPEN FURTHER 
FOR AN OVERSEAS COMPETITOR..THINK AIRBUS !
    GIL HODGES , REGISTERED VOTER.



MTC-00008721

From: Robert Steffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dears Sirs:
    I support the comprehensive agreement reached with the U.S. 
Government and Microsoft Corp.. I think the agreement is fair and 
will finally end this costly and non-productive litigation. Please 
consider my opinion as you make your decision on this matter.
    Sincerely;
    Robert M. Steffy,
    Holtwood, Pa



MTC-00008722

From: Dan Van Fleet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been involved in the computer industry from before 
Microsoft became a widely known company. I remember the 640K 
capability of DOS, being what seemed like more than we would ever 
need, I admired and respected Microsoft at that point. My how times 
have changed.
    Today, I find Microsoft's actions to be horrid. I feel much like 
a young child in Chicago when he finds out that nice man down the 
street is actually a mob boss. The child asks his mother, ``That 
man, he kills people?'', his mother responds yes he does. The child, 
afraid, still smiles when the man says hi, he takes a bit of candy 
when offered, so to not upset the boss. Microsoft is that boss, 
ISV's and users are the children.
    Through my daily dealings with Microsoft software, I've felt 
Microsoft was unfairly using it's power to force it's products on 
the public. That has now been proven in court, the proposed 
settlement is not a solution. Microsoft has already ignored a 
similar solution, and lied about it through demonstrations in court. 
Don't let them do it again.
    Further, please do not let the actions of 9/11 cause you to go 
easy on Microsoft, that would be a travesty of justice. Microsoft is 
currently using those events to attain their goals, don't let them 
do it. It is a pity that Judge Jackson, so horrified by the 
testimony, spoke out of turn, don't let Microsoft take advantage of 
his mistake.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25063]]

    Dan Van Fleet
    IT Director
    Dayton, Ohio



MTC-00008723

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:14pm
Subject: Stop the idiocy of litigating against innovation
    Please stop spending my tax dollars to litigate against 
Microsoft.



MTC-00008724

From: Philip Robbins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    Please settle the Microsoft case with all states and let us, as 
the President said, get on with our lives. We, at this critical time 
in our country, do not need one more thing to drag down our economy.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Philip J, Robbins
    36 Rock Hill Lane
    Fort Thomas, KY 41075



MTC-00008725

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled as soon as possible.
    D.K. Martin
    [email protected]



MTC-00008726

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    This letter is written in support of the Microsoft Settlement 
with the hope that the already negotiated agreement will be 
finalized so that all parties will be bound by it and therefore 
complete the agreement forthwith. It is important that Microsoft 
competitors and some misguided states attorneys general are forced 
to comply with the already negotiated settlement and finish this 
protracted bloodletting at once.
    Respectfully,
    David C. Mactye, M.D.,
    PO Box 50, West Bloomfield, NY 14618
    716-370-0361



MTC-00008727

From: Dennis Gignac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to let you know that I have been following this 
case since the very beginning and have written to the Wisconsin 
State DOJ a number of times expressing my opinion on the subject. I 
find it very satisfying that now that there appears to be an end to 
this mess it is very close to my original opinion. Anyway, I am 
completely in favor of the current settlement arrangement and I feel 
strongly that Microsoft has not harmed me in anyway with their 
actions in the past. I will agree that Microsoft has taken a hard 
line with computer companies and although I see no real anti-trust I 
will concede that the USDOJ most likely knows that laws much better 
than I do. I will say that my opinion is that Microsoft has done 
more to protect the software industry and end users with the stance 
they have taken then damage they may have done to competitors.
    Anyway. I am strongly in favor of the settlement and it is time 
allow Microsoft to get on with their work of adding more features 
into their operating systems at will.
    Thank you
    Dennis Gignac
    Brookfield, WI



MTC-00008728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:27pm
Subject: Opinion
    We are in favor of the settlement worked out with Microsoft.
    Marlene & Alan Feinstein



MTC-00008729

From: Rollie Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern at U.S. Dept. Of Justice,
    I have worked in the computer industry for nearly 28 years. I 
have seen many things come and go since the early-to-mid 70's. One 
of the most ridiculous things I have witnessed it this incessant 
hounding of Microsoft. Why? They are successful. Get over it. Why 
are they successful? They build good products for which the public 
willingly exchanges value in the form of legal tender. Again, gladly 
is the manner in which they (the public and businesses) do so.
    Have you ever gone to an Office Depot or Staples or whatever 
store and seen anyone pushing people into the aisle with MSFT 
products? Any in hammer locks being forced to buy MSFT products 
while the Apple side of the aisle (or usually completely different 
aisle for Apple since there needs to be a whole aisle just for MSFT 
binaries) is nearly vacant? So you have choice, you have a free 
market, you have people voting by the millions with their checkbooks 
for MSFT products. I have used Sun Microsystems machines, which I 
consider better than most Intel-based machines for many tasks. I can 
and will use them when needed. The Sun Solaris operating system is 
excellent. In many cases better than Windows2000 or any other OS. 
There are a number of great applications. If there were not why 
would SUNW be a multi-billion dollar commercial success? I have 
Linux at my disposal on my Intel-based systems as well. I can run 
that and have. It's good for a lot of things. It has applications 
too. People run them. In many cases they are even free. You get what 
you pay for. That's why I have CHOSEN to buy Microsoft products for 
all my family's home needs. It's why I use them on my business 
laptop as well. They work and they work very well.
    Why not consider this and stop wasting my and other taxpayers' 
money by hounding MSFT any further? Jealously of their success is 
just some warped commercial form of class envy. Let someone else 
step up and do a better job than Microsoft and they market will take 
care of itself. Please get closure on this Microsoft litigation and 
free them to focus on doing their fair share, which they likely are 
more than willing to do, and channel their valuable resources into 
helping to get the economy into high gear again. Hounding Microsoft 
any further is wasteful of taxpayer resources, wasteful of Microsoft 
and Microsoft shareholder resources and just generally bad for 
everyone.
    Thanks much,
    Roland Schmidt
    Auburn, CA 95602



MTC-00008730

From: Aaron Freed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a systems administrator and have been for 15 years. I have 
held an MCSE since 1999.
    I have been working with Microsoft products since Dos 2.11, and 
since Windows 3.0. I have worked with all versions of Windows NT 
starting with version 3.50 and up through the current verison of 
Windows XP.
    I have spent many, many hours with Microsoft products, learning 
them, supporting them, trouble-shooting them.
    I have been involved with Linux (RedHat) on a serious level 
since Version 7.1 (on a less serious level, since Version 6.2).
    With Microsoft, when there is a problem, I find that the 
solution is about 70% trying to figure out what the right menu 
option or button is to select to elicit a dialog that allows me to 
change the desired settings. 20% of the time is spent trying to find 
away around Microsoft's attempts to prevent me from ``doing 
something dangerous, that might harm my software''. And 10% of the 
time, I am actually resolving the problem.
    The key to troubleshooting Microsoft problems seems to be in 
rote memorization of menu-options, dialogs and buttons needed to 
change a desired setting.
    The key, with Linux, is usually a matter of editing a script or 
possibly recoding some software or component, which generally 
requires not only an understanding of why the problem happened, but 
also how the ``fix'' for it works--or at least knowing that you have 
access to the source code and other documentation that will help you 
to understand how the fix works, why it works, and how the program 
being fixed works.
    In short, it is something like the difference between knowing 
how to go to the store and purchase a loaf of cake, versus knowing 
how to actually make a cake from scratch (with documented and 
usually fairly clearly explained instructions).
    Microsoft is a closed system, a ``black box'', if you will. You 
generally put in your data and you get a result, but you really 
don't know how that result is generated. And when that result is not 
what is expected or desired, your recourses for figuring out why are 
quite limited, because you aren't allowed inside the ``black box''.

[[Page 25064]]

    Linux, on the other hand, is an open system. Like Microsoft, you 
put in your data and get a result out. However, if the result is not 
what is desired, or expected, you have the option of taking apart 
the ``black box'' and tinkering with its internal workings to make 
it work the way you want it to.
    Microsoft charges you for the privilege of using their 
software--their marketing effort focused primarily on emphasizing 
the claim that MS is easy to use and that ``if you know one program, 
you pretty much know them all.''
    Linux makes no such claim. Nor are you ever charged for it. 
However, with a little know-how and a willingness to learn and try 
to understand, what you give up in a generic, standardized 
interface, you more than make up for in terms of control of your 
system and your data. And, surprisingly, it is not very difficult to 
customize your system to make it just as `generically easy to use' 
as Windows. (Frequently even more so.)
    Now, Microsoft wants to offer us the ``.Net'' option, where we 
completely surrender control of our system to them in the form of 
paying a monthly or yearly subscription fee to ``rent'' their 
software. Ostensibly, this alleviates the need for upgrades, 
maintenance, and troubleshooting on the part of the end-user. In 
truth, in removes the ``ownership'' of the user's data from him, 
because, should the user decide not to renew this ``subscription'' 
to Microsoft's ``.Net'', service, they will find that they can no 
longer access their data because it is stored in formats understood 
only by Microsoft.Net programs.
    Not only are we being asked to surrender control of our 
computers to Microsoft, we are being asked to surrender control of 
our personal data. And, on top of that, we are being required to pay 
Microsoft a montly fee for the priviledge!
    Slavery is one thing. Asking the slaves to pay for the 
priviledge of being enthralled to a master who hardly has their best 
interests at heart is just plain stupid.
    I choose not to be part of this.
    I choose an operating system that does not require daily reboots 
just to keep running properly.
    I choose not to spend hours of my time trying to navigate 
through installation routines that have been made Byzantine in their 
complexity--in order to protect Microsoft's software license.
    I choose not to use an operating system and software 
applications that were designed with the assumption that I not only 
don't know what I am doing, but also that I am too stupid to learn.
    I choose not to be required to call Microsoft and inform them of 
every significant change I make to my hardware.
    I choose not to be an unwitting ``beta test site'' for products 
that have not been properly quality controlled because it was deamed 
more important to rush the product out the door in order to make a 
few extra sales.
    I choose Linux.
    I choose FREEDOM.
    With Linux, when there is a problem, I find
    Aaron [email protected]
    [email protected]
    ``The truth is out there... But I have no idea who left it 
there, nor why.''



MTC-00008731

From: ereomsncom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:37pm
Subject: Dear Sir,
    Dear Sir,
    It is very important that the case is settled once and for all. 
I don't think Microsoft did anything wrong. This Country was build 
on free enterprize and the freedom to inovate products and to have a 
patent on the products they they invent. No one can just come along 
and try to get in on the product to make money..
    That is wrong.
    Liz Reo
    506 S. Owen
    Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
    [email protected]
    847 398 6151



MTC-00008732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The is a bought prosecution...And a shame to our country.



MTC-00008733

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. That company is a 
national treasure. There is no question that without the technology 
that they delivered to us, I and many others would not be as 
computer capable as we are now.
    Phil Boggs



MTC-00008734

From: Roger Reece
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my support of the November 2, 2001 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. The 
last thing the country needs is our benevolent government spending 
additional time and resources pursuing Microsoft that ultimately 
benefits competitors who are using the legal system in stead of 
superior products to defeat Microsoft in the market place. There are 
more important issues for the government to address. Our economy is 
on a down slope, unemployment is on the rise, public health and 
related legacy environmental issues need to be acted on, and money 
laundering is requiting greater amounts of manpower with its 
increasing threat as food for ciminal endeavors.
    The US should stay focused on the events of the recent past and 
wake up to the fact that petty legal means to chip away at 
Microsoft's hard-won success benefits none but a few. Common 
knowledge is that international criminals have us in their 
crosshairs; what rights have Microsoft so violated to deserve such 
scrutiny? Microsoft, if anything, is at the forefront helping 
individuals and the country realize our potential through leading 
edge technology, philanthropy and enterprise also benefiting 
Microsoft's employees, vendors and end-users that span the country 
and the globe.
    Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft has accepted to 
undergo major changes in the way they conduct business. It includes 
the following: Granting new rights to computer manufactures to 
configure their systems to access various Windows features as they 
see fit.
    Microsoft must design future versions of Windows to make it 
easier to install non-Microsoft software.
    The DOJ will create an ongoing technical oversight committee. It 
will have access to various Microsoft trade secrets and intellectual 
property--a painful right to ownership for any company to give up.
    Finally, the settlement negates the rights of no one as 
competitors can still sue Microsoft if they feel Microsoft isn't 
complying with these terms. Please settle these legal actions under 
the current agreed terms and redirect your energies to the slim that 
is out to distroy America.



MTC-00008735

From: John Peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Friends:
    I am writing to support the Microsoft settlement. I am a 4th 
grade teacher and a building computer contact in our district. Our 
school, along with others would welcome any and all help for our 
technology program. Because of budget cuts, our entire computer 
budget relies solely on our state TEACH grant which amounts to about 
$40,000. The inservice portion of our budget is gone, and almost no 
training takes place. Hardware and software budgets are about one 
fourth of 3 years ago. Please settle this agreement and help us and 
other schools.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Have a GREAT DAY!
    John Peter
    Spooner Elementary School
    1821 Scribner
    Spooner, WI 54801
    (715) 635-2174 ext. 1227
    (715) 635-7984 FAX
    Every Child Deserves a GREAT School!
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008736

From: tnjb123
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! Let's get on with the Microsoft settlement. In 
the interest of the economy and all parties concerned, pandering to 
crybaby competitors and special interest groups needs to stop. It is 
in all citizen's interest to stop the litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas J. Barbercheck
    321 Mary Drive
    New Albany, IN 47150



MTC-00008737

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:03pm

[[Page 25065]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you all would be well advised to drop this case 
forthwith.
    Larry Townsend



MTC-00008738

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    We understand that the District Court is accepting public 
comment regarding the Microsoft Settlement. It is in this regard 
that we submit the following. We strongly believe that the 
settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. We further believe that this entire action over nearly 
four years, has been motivated and sustained not by consumer 
interest or demand, but has been due to the aggressive efforts of a 
few special interests, primarily Microsoft's competitors. The 
spinoff effect of this activity has negatively impacted the American 
economy and has not been of benefit to consumers.
    We urge that the District Court accepts this settlement. The 
last thing the American economy needs is more litigation on this 
matter, that may benefit only a few competitors, while further 
damaging consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. & Mrs. Roger W. Ponto
    8611 NE 26th Place
    Bellevue WA 98004
    Phone: 452.453.1979
    Fax: 425.453.2595
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00008739

From: Tony Domit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and engineer who has worked in the computer 
industry for over 35 years, I support and encourage Microsoft to 
continue innovating in the world of high tech. As a consumer, I am 
delighted with the price, performance, and ease of use they provide 
with their software. This is particularly the case when comparing 
their current offerings to those available ten years ago and 
earlier.
    My understanding is that DOJ's antitrust responsibilities are to 
protect the consumer. I, and nearly every user of Microsoft products 
I have ever spoken with are delighted with their products. I don?t 
believe it is DOJ's responsibilities to level the competitive 
playing field nor do I buy the allegations that Microsoft's 
practices have stifled competition at the expense of the consumer.
    I believe the DOJ's current proposed remedies are more than 
adequate to punish Microsoft for their intense competitive practices 
and would like to see an end put to all the ?lawyering? particularly 
by many of the state attorney generals.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Domit



MTC-00008740

From: Mohammad Nawaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ settlement with Microsoft is in the right direction. I 
do agree with the settlement and hope to get this thing over soon.
    Regards,
    Mohammad Nawaz
    779 Wood Ave
    Edison, NJ--08820



MTC-00008741

From: Mike Thibodeau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Our economy is always thriving in proportion to how Free it is. 
Please keep your Hands Off!! Microsoft has improved the standard of 
living for everyone in the US, more than anyone ever cares to 
acknowledge. But more important is the principle--this is supposed 
to be a Free Market!
    Thanks,
    Mike Thibodeau
    Derry NH 03038
    603-234-7411
    Mike Thibodeau
    [email protected]
    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/mthibodeau



MTC-00008742

From: Perry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attn: Dept. of Justice
    The Tunney settlement of the Microsoft debacle is fair and 
equitable. It doesn't destroy any one or any business. It evens the 
playing field as far as laws are concerned. Let the detractors 
create their own platform. Lets get on with the economy and 
business. By the way, if you want to stifle someones business do it 
to the Chinese. Fair Trade Status for them is a joke.
    Perry Arnold
    Chandler, AZ



MTC-00008743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:39pm
Subject: Settle with Microsoft
    Close out this case in favor of Microsoft 100%. Let the market 
place prevail. Let free enterprise ring.



MTC-00008745

From: Jane D. Alley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case as soon as possible without further 
litigation.



MTC-00008746

From: Ken Landon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    As a consumer of Microsoft's and other companies' software 
products, I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    I was saddened and dismayed that the Department of Justice chose 
to prosecute Microsoft in the first place. I find Microsoft's 
products to be extremely valuable in both my career and my home use. 
The company has earned its dominant position in the market. It is 
every American's right--including the people who own and operate 
Microsoft--to be left free to ``sink or swim'' in the marketplace. 
And it is my right as a citizen of the United States to be allowed 
to patronize Microsoft without the interference of court-imposed 
antitrust restrictions on the company.
    I respectfully urge the Department of Justice to drop all 
charges against Microsoft. Microsoft is a great American company 
that should be left free to operate without any antitrust 
restrictions.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Landon
    200 Clinton Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11201
    718-694-0226



MTC-00008747

From: VINCENT PENZO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    My only comment on the settlement is--there shouldn't be any. In 
fact, there shouldn't have been any prosecution to begin with. The 
government was created to protect people's rights, not tell 
productive businessmen how to run their companies. Bill Gates has 
every right to produce and sell his products on his own terms--with 
those who wish to do business with him. Anyone who doesn't like it 
can try to build a better mouse-trap. Enough whining from lesser-
able competitors! As for consumers--remember when PC's cost $10,000? 
Leave Bill alone!
    The DOJ should have spent those millions of dollars all through 
'90s on something important-- like tracking down the Islamic 
fundamentalist's money laundering schemes.
    Let's put the `Justice' back in the `DOJ'!
    Sincerely,
    Vincent Penzo
    Everett, MA
    [email protected]



MTC-00008748

From: GARFOOT, ROGER D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:06pm
Subject: Opposition to Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement
    I do not believe the DOJ negotiated settlement will protect any 
group (consumer, manufacturer, software developer) from Microsoft's 
ability to extend their existing monopolies in desktop operating 
systems and office productivity suites into new areas such as server 
operating systems, internet infrastructure and middleware. 
Microsoft's control of the API's for the monopoly supported 
operating system (OS) allows them to tie new products (middleware, 
frameworks, etc.) into the OS in ways that other developers can not 
match. Once its in the OS, competing products don't stand much 
chance. It is far from a level competitive playing field when 
developing software products that compete with Microsoft. A prime 
example is Microsoft's lack of support for Java in Windows XP.

[[Page 25066]]

    Microsoft found room to include all their language runtimes, 
middleware, partner applications, etc. in Windows XP but claims 
including a Java JVM would make the OS to large. Come on, as 
delivered by Microsoft Windows XP is already approximately 1.5 GB. 
The Java JVM is only about 5 MB.
    Microsoft also made it much more difficult to add plug-ins into 
Windows XP and Internet Explorer (IE) which discourages use of 
competing technologies. Java has always been a threat to requiring 
everyone to run Windows OS and has been attacked by Microsoft in 
much the same way as Microsoft attacked Netscape. When Microsoft 
could not embrace, extend and extinguish Java, they blocked 
improvements and developed their own Java clone.
    Microsoft is an abusive monopolist in the same way in which 
Standard Oil was an abusive monopolist. The proposal by the nine 
states not agreeing to this settlement is much more likely to 
prevent additional abuses.
    As an IT professional, I know that the biggest reasons Microsoft 
is able to maintain their monopoly in corporate desktop OS's is the 
integration of desktop Windows and Windows servers, Microsoft 
Outlook integration with Exchange and the lack of availability of 
Microsoft Office on platforms such as Linux and UNIX. The proposed 
DOJ settlement will do nothing to rectify this situation and allow 
increased consumer/corporate choice in desktop OS's
    Roger D. Garfoot
    Computer Applications Engineer
    T&D Computing--Application Development
    Omaha Public Power District
    444 S. 16th St. Mall
    (Mailstop: 6W/EP3)
    Omaha, NE 68102-2247
    Phone: (402) 636-3175
    Fax: (402) 636-3947
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00008751

From: william scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It seems to me that the Microsoft settlement is sufficent and 
adequate. Plus enough tax money has been expended trying to stifle a 
successful company.
    Sincerely,
    W.I. Scott



MTC-00008752

From: Bob Coleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I applaud your efforts to settle the Microsoft issue. My opinion 
on the entire matter is that failed competitors used the US justice 
system to enhance their business position to the detriment of 
consumers and to the detriment of the information industry.
    We needed a cheap, stable, common system which Microsoft 
provided. The initial suit was unwarranted. The proposed settlement 
by the DOJ and MS is much more punitive to MS than what I consider 
fair, but if it brings this issure to closure, I can see its merits.



MTC-00008753

From: FRANK MACK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This matter has dragged on far too long and I urge the 
settlement go forward with no further delay.



MTC-00008754

From: arnebBronton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear General Aschcroft:
    Freedom comes in many forms, freedom of speech, freedom of 
worship, however, this great Country used to have freedom to 
innovate, create and develop processes that benefited all of 
mankind, the developer as well as the general public worldwide. 
Unfortunately, the Justice Department, under former President 
Clinton, attacked Microsoft, a company that revolutionized the 
industrial world. What used to take days can now be accomplished in 
minutes. Such innovation of course, also enhanced the company's 
share value which benefited all of it's shareholders, those visible 
and those not so visible in 401K's, IRA's, pension plans, etc. 
Unfortunately, when the Government continues it's attacks on 
companies such as Microsoft and the like, the desire to create and 
invest becomes stifled. Just look to Europe when governments 
controlled development.
    I know we have a now have a President who looks to the future 
and wants to encourage further development. I am sorry to say that I 
feel we still have a number of narrow minded people in the Justice 
Department and with nine State's Attorneys who have the mind set of 
if I have 6 they are entitled to 3 whether they have invested in 
risk, market, innovation or not. This type of thinking should have 
been abolished with the fall of the Berlin Wall as it has no longer 
a place in a free society.
    I respectfully solicit your assistance in ridding our Country of 
these frivolous lawsuits that is harming companies, and millions of 
hardworking taxpayers, investors and retirees.
    Sincerely,
    Anre Bronton
    4724 Oak Leaf Drive
    Naples, FL 34119
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008755

From: John R. Simmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those having challenges:
    How long must this go on? As an private user of Microsoft 
operating systems since DOS originated, for me 1975?? Microsoft has 
been most cooperative in solving any challenges that I have had. 
Just because they have been successful in developing good systems 
and continuing to do so, why must government keep anyone from doing 
so?
    This computer is my 4th computer with each having Microsoft's 
operating systems. Currently have Windows XP. It is about time we 
stop interfering in the lives of corporations and individuals who 
are intuitive to getting ahead of the crowds.
    Deacon John



MTC-00008756

From: William Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was pleased with the Nov 2nd settlement agreement in the 
Microsoft antitrust suit . . . the settlement seems reasonable and 
well thought-out . . . it requires significant changes in how 
Microsoft develops and markets its products.
    I believe that revisiting the settlement and/or further 
litigation will have a negative impact on our economy, slowing its 
recovery and is basically a last ditch effort by Microsoft's 
competitors to further curtail the company's operations.....with the 
troubled condition of our economy and budgets, it does not make 
sense to spend more time and money on a settled lawsuit.
    William Stone
    82 River Dr.
    Appleton, WI 54915



MTC-00008757

From: Pat Tormey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a software developer who's small business depends heavily on 
Microsoft products.
    I would like the DOJ to settle this matter as quickly as 
possible.
    In a capitalist economy the people ``vote'' with their wallets 
and the people have already voted in favor of Microsoft. We Like 
them! They are good for business. Small businesses depend on the 
affordable tools provided by Microsoft. If we didn't, then we would 
buy our tools from the other guy.
    The DOJ is not protecting the consumer they are only shielding 
other large businesses from the free market.
    Thanks to the DOJ's efforts to ``help'', we now have serious 
instability in the economy. The DOJ's efforts have severely damaged 
millions of retirement plans and pushed thousands of small 
businesses out of existence. AND STILL Sun Micro Systems reports 
``Net loss for the first quarter was $158 million'' and Netscape 
can't even GIVE AWAY its Internet browser. Let's face it, these guys 
cannot compete even with the DOJs thumb on the scales of justice.
    DOJ, please settle this action as soon as you can. Your efforts 
to ``help'' the consumer are killing us off.
    Pat Tormey PE
    www.FourSquare.com



MTC-00008758

From: Ron Rouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    No more litigation, enough is enough.

[[Page 25067]]



MTC-00008759

From: joseph a santillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:48pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    I would like to applaud the settlement which was reached. As a 
consumer, I believe that the settlement will provide benefits to me. 
Further, I think that the economy in general will benefit.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Santillo,
    Gouldsboro, PA.



MTC-00008760

From: Judy Ponto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:57pm
Subject: freedom
    Our freedom in the USA does guarantee our right to free speech 
and to enterprise. This should also include innovation and mfst has 
strived for innovation through their products.
    Judy Ponto
    [email protected]



MTC-00008761

From: Judy Ponto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:01pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Americans have always had a freedom of speech. Msft has used 
innovation to the nth degree for their customers. Please listen to 
our plea for contined innovation without government control.
    Judy Ponto
    [email protected]



MTC-00008762

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a private citizen and a small investor, I believe that 
Microsoft has already paid a high price for alledged wrong doing. I 
believe that Microsoft is only being victimized by its success in 
the marketplace.
    Any further action against Microsoft is totally unfair.



MTC-00008763

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please leave microsoft alone!!!! they produce a product that 
millons use at a bargian price. this attact has hurt the economy and 
dirupted thier pursiut of future products.
    guy e estes
    stockholder
    thank you. . . . .



MTC-00008764

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I belive that the settlement is fair and good for the U.S.A. 
Lets get on with the other important issues in our country.
    j.w. moore
    6967 gates rd
    gates mills, ohio 44040



MTC-00008765

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I am against any prosecution against Microsoft. The PC as it is 
today is the result of this company. All the inovations have been 
made by them and I for one am very glad to be a part of this 
company. Think again



MTC-00008766

From: Pat (038) Jim Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this settlement once and for all. The government 
will only be acting in the people's interest if this problem is 
stopped. Can't lawyers find something better to do with their time?
    Pat Ferguson



MTC-00008767

From: Hugh Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all Anti-Trust, Anti-Microsoft supporters:
    What you are doing to Microsoft is worse than what bin Laden did 
to the Twin Towers. Your target is obviously the same as his: US 
Capitalism. Drop all further action against Microsoft and go back 
into your AntiTrust caves. Rejoice in the totally evil and 
irrational damage you've already inflicted on the US economy and 
Microsoft. You and the Taliban can celebrate together.
    Hugh Roberts
    3636 New Karleen Road
    Hephzibah, GA 30815



MTC-00008768

From: Gary P. Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please back off this company. They are operating in a free 
market society.
    Thank you.
    Gary Beck



MTC-00008769

From: Fred Oberkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement??
    To Whom it May Concern:
    After review of the alleged ``Microsoft Settlement'', I am 
simply amazed. I have been in management and management consulting 
in the Information Technologies industry for over 25 years and this 
settlement is about as close to a whitewash as anything I have ever 
seen.
    Microsoft has been ``licking its chops'' for the education 
market for years and you are willing to give it to them with this 
settlement. Schools are the training ground for young minds. What 
our children learn in school will be carried out into the business 
world with them. You are giving Microsoft the absolute and 
undisputed authority to monopolize this market with their ``free'' 
give away. I cannot wait to see Microsoft's advertising campaign in 
about a year when they can legitimately claim that they have been 
``selected'' by 100% of the schools in the country as their 
Operating System of choice, thanks to your settlement. This does not 
even consider that most of the refurbished equipment that Microsoft 
has proposed to give to the schools will probably not be compatible 
with its newer Operating Systems. Schools being as tight with 
budgets as they are known to be will probably spend a fortune 
upgrading the equipment rather than just get rid of it like they 
should.
    You are also opening up all of our schools to hackers with this 
settlement. This is due to the well-documented (and possibly as of 
yet unfound) security ``holes'' in the current Microsoft Operating 
Systems. Just what this country needs is to have our school systems 
spending millions of dollars to fight electronic invasions. Has 
anyone considered how devastating that could be to this country?
    Furthermore, Microsoft continues to gobble up small software 
companies that would have been their competition. At this time, that 
can only be blamed on the greed of the owners of those companies and 
Microsoft's total disregard for any previous agreement they may have 
had to cease their predatory practices with the Department of 
Justice.
    It is my personal opinion and that of many others I have spoken 
with, that we, the American taxpayers and citizens, have been sold 
down the river with this proposed settlement. If this process is 
allowed to continue, this settlement will only serve to make it 
appear to the normal citizen that enough money can buy its own 
justice. That may seem like a rather harsh statement, but companies 
like AT&T have gone through far more serious penalties than this 
proposed settlement even comes close to and they have survived quite 
well.
    Thank you for your time,
    F.J. Oberkamp



MTC-00008770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Public Comment
    May it please the court:
    I am a systems professional and actually install, configure, 
maintain and support the products made by Microsoft and other 
software publishers. I work for a transit agency and am not a 
supporter of either side in this case (Microsoft or its rivals: Sun-
AOL/Netscape-Oracle-Linux-Apple.) My mission is to keep real users 
working productively, to manage change and maximize my agency's 
investments in technology so as to give the taxpayers the best 
results for every dollar spent on computers and software. I have 
worked in help desk, LAN security and now Internet Administration 
for my agency. I have no personal interest in this case and am not 
affiliated with either camp (MS vs ABM, where ABM=Anyone But 
Microsoft.)
    In short, I understand the delicate balance between software 
design and real-world

[[Page 25068]]

usability. While those in the legal profession are increasingly 
knowledgeable about computer systems, there are some details that 
must seem capricious and arbitrary. Also, some of the arguments 
between Microsoft and those in the computer industry who oppose 
Microsoft have distorted some of the real facts about:
    1. the relationship between the operating system and bundled 
applications
    2. availability of API entry points and usage information in the 
operating system that can be used by programs
    3. the benefit of providing internal source code from 
Microsoft's products
    4. the use of monopoly power by Microsoft to stifle its 
competitors Let me offer some observations about these four issues 
(I will keep it short, but will gladly provide additional 
information if asked by the court.)
    1. It benefits the consumer when a free application is included. 
This should be encouraged and Microsoft should not be seen as 
predatory by bundling Internet Explorer, Messenger, Media Player, 
Movie Maker or any other software. However, Microsoft should make it 
easier for users to NOT use their software, or to change their 
minds. Creating software that is deliberately unstable to make a 
competitor look bad by making their applications fail is predatory 
and should be discouraged. These two aspects are connected: if they 
want to give you a free web browser, fine, but they should allow you 
to uninstall it, use another product and never sabotage a user's 
work to gain competitive advantage.
    2. An Operating System must have clearly defined entry and exit 
points for all supported services: connectivity, fax, applications, 
chat, sound, video, interprocess communication and transparent error 
messages all rely on system calls and other API resources. To 
withhold any known API information is anti-competitive. If the 
systems division writes a ``special'' interface to optimize an 
application division program, that is anti-competitive. Any API 
information available to Microsoft's programmers should be 
documented publicly (and well!) to benefit the public.
    3. Computers that crash can cause loss and even harm. Allowing 
programming errors (bugs) to remain, or withholding information 
about the underlying operating system idiosyncrasies from the 
general public should be penalized. Computers are increasingly used 
to maintain and monitor critical processes. Someday, even life 
support systems might rely on Windows internals for stability and 
correct processing. Opening the source code to all major components 
would allow peer review and improvement of the whole system.
    4. Microsoft's business practices are consistent with American 
industry, however because of the sheer power that one sole vendor 
possesses in this market, Microsoft's dictating terms to 
manufacturers (no discount means a manufacturer suffers a 
disadvantage that usually puts them out of business) is very bad for 
consumers. All licenses should be full licenses, no product should 
be abandoned so Microsoft can sell a newer version. There should be 
Home and Professional versions, and all Home licenses should be very 
cheaply ($20) upgradeable to the current version. Professional 
versions should be about $50 to upgrade to the current version. 
Microsoft should not place limitations, stipulations or other 
coercive mechanisms to force users to buy a new version. If 
Microsoft is making a free version of an application available to 
users of the latest OS version, there should also be a comparable 
program for older systems at the same cost.
    Proposed Remedy: The present monopoly can only be remedied by 
having two companies like Microsoft. One for home, one for business. 
Microsoft Home: Windows XP Home, MSN, MSNBC, Microsoft games, The 
Zone, Works, Money, Educational and Entertainment software. Also all 
hardware mice, game devices, keyboard, etc. Microsoft Business 
Windows XP Pro, XP Server, Advanced Server, IlS, SQL, Languages, 
Office Applications (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access, Publisher), 
embedded applications, handheld PCs.
    Both companies should offer a one-time upgrade to any user 
surrendering a Windows license, users must provide name and address 
and perform some product activation to connect the upgrade to the 
user. The license should be transferable to new systems owned by the 
same user. The upgrades should cover the costs to Microsoft but not 
become a profit center. This remedies the millions of Americans who 
paid for a working operating system and are still waiting. Both 
companies would have to specify and coordinate the future of Windows 
API and services, this information would be public to encourage 
competitors to Windows. If ever Windows fell to less than 50 percent 
of market share of new computer sales, this provision would be 
removed for every subsequent year that Windows constituted less than 
50 percent of the market for operating systems.
    Both companies would be enjoined from and penalized for anti-
competitive behavior, including limiting user rights to compare and 
publicize any Microsoft product, manipulating manufacturers' rights 
to install or not install any software, and to sell systems with no 
operating system at all if they choose. Also, Microsoft must refrain 
from blatantly lying about competitors as they recently did to 
Novell. ``Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt'' are bad for the consumer, 
bad for the marketplace and ultimately bad for America.
    All Operating System API's, including handling of multimedia, 
files, data and/or network connections must be publicly documented. 
Sufficient penalty should exist to insure conformance. No Microsoft 
product should be designed to fail if not used with Microsoft 
products or products from Microsoft's business panners, present or 
future. In other words, all programs should have an equal chance of 
operating properly, and deliberate interference with programs or 
connections not provided by Microsoft or its partners should 
constitute a punishable offense.
    In summary, let me say that while the law may seem to make this 
a case between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, it must be 
remembered that the whole purpose of antimonopoly law is to protect 
the consumer and the American marketplace. Any solution that leaves 
Microsoft richer for its use of manipulative licensing, unscrupulous 
practices, outright rigging of product comparisons or other blatant 
falsehoods to prevent marketplace competition is unacceptable. 
Microsoft charged home users to buy Windows 3.0, then again for 3.1, 
then again for 95 and 98 and 98 SE, then again for ME. I paid for 
``Windows'' six times (eight if you consider that I also bought 
Windows 386 and Windows for Workgroups.) I paid each time like I was 
buying a perfected product but never got an OS that did not crash. 
This is like buying a TV that does not work, waiting for a fix and 
being told you have to pay for the SAME TV all over again . . . six, 
seven, eight times!
    Business users have also been taken to the cleaners by 
Microsoft's marketing muscles. I am sure others have noted that 
Microsoft's EULA promises nothing from Microsoft other than media 
that is readable, yet requires you to give up all kinds of unrelated 
rights (like the stipulation that you can not use Windows to compile 
a list of Windows bugs, mistakes, criticisms of the product or 
performance comparisons!)
    Thank you for this opportunity to offer my opinion,
    John Rosengarten
    Internet Administrator
    MIS Internet Services
    Pace Suburban Bus Service
    desk 847 228-2348
    fax 847 228-3596
    [email protected]



MTC-00008771

From: Brian Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe it's time to end the litigation in this matter. A 
settlement is on the table. For the sake of the economy put this 
matter to rest.
    Brian Ward



MTC-00008772

From: Roberto A.Perez--CARGAMERICAS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SHOULD LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE 
AND LET THEM GROW EVEN FURTHER SO THAT NOT ONLY USA BUT THE WHOLE 
WORLD CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR PROGRESS. I CAN NOT UNDERSTAND 
THAT BEING GOOD AND SUCCESSFUL SHOULD BE PENALIZED BUT INSTEAD 
REWARDED SINCE WITHOUT THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS SYSTEM WE ALL WOULD BE 
YEARS BEHIND IN TECHNOLOGY.
    I DO NOT RECEIVE ANY MONEY FROM MICROSOFT BUT I AM A BUSINESSMAN 
AND I HATE TO SEE MY POSSIBILITIES CUT BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN WORKING 
HARD AND THEREFORE MY SUCCESS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE GOVERNMENT 
DECISIONS. OF COURSE

[[Page 25069]]

THERE ARE OTHER COMPANIES THAT WANT MICROSOFT PENALIZED SIMPLY 
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HAD THE TECHNOLOGY OR THE KNOW HOW TO DO WHAT 
MICROSOFT DID. MY ANSWER TO THAT IS: TOUGH LUCK FOR THEM AND THEY 
SHOULD STRIVE TO BE EVEN BETTER THAN MICROSOFT RATHER THAN LOOKING 
FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO THEIR JOB IN CUTTING THEIR SUCCESS.
    VERY TRULY YOURS,
    ROBERTO A. PEREZ
    10106 S.W. 93RD. PLACE
    MIAMI, FLA. 33176



MTC-00008773

From: John Travitzky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:35pm
Subject: no subject>
    From: John James Travitzky
    59727 Drexel Road
    Yucca Valley, CA 92284
    To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney,
    Suite 1200, Antitrust Division,
    Department of Justice,
    601 D Street NW,
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    I am writing this letter in protest of the proposed Microsoft 
vs. U.S. settlement. I believe that allowing Microsoft to ``donate'' 
software/hardware at retail cost is giving them an unfair advantage 
in the Educational fields. The outcome would most likely be that 
Microsoft writes off full retail values on any ``donations'', 
therefore inflating value of the collection of debt from them. This 
would be a disservice to both the public, and the government.
    The point of ``free technical support'' is the same as above in 
reasoning. The ``cost'' of Microsoft technical support is almost 
exclusively a maintenance issue, rather than a support issue. What I 
mean is, When using Windows machines, you almost always have to rely 
on others to keep your machine running. I have personally done many 
``repairs'' that were nothing more than transferring a couple of 
letters mistyped in commands, or, in other cases, downloading a 
driver from an internet source. Other computers historically have 
needed far less maintenance, tech support, or repairs. The hourly 
wage charged by Microsoft for ``tech support'' or repairs could be 
inflated, therefore giving them another ``out'' in having to pay the 
full penalty.
    I am extremely concerned with the proposal1s ``patriotic'' 
overtones... that they (Microsoft) have utilized in the settlement. 
Microsoft is one of the worlds1 largest companies, and they are now 
``offering'' to supply our poorest and most undereducated schools 
with their computers, software, and tech support. While this, in 
light of our immense needs in the educational fields is a great 
thing, it is not really an offer, but simply a way to ``write off'' 
expenditures that are grossly inflated, pay off the penalty of this 
crime, and make the company look more humanitarian than they really 
are. They have been building libraries, offering ``free software'', 
and hardware within the educational community since their inception, 
and still, they are not a leader in this highly competitive market. 
This brings on my next point.
    By allowing Microsoft to ``donate'' to the educational community 
in lieu of payment for their crime, you are in essence, forgiving 
their debt, and allowing them to further their grasp in a field that 
has been held by their long time business competitor, Apple 
Computer, Inc. As a 17 year user of both Window based and MacOS 
based computers, I find it hard to believe this proposed settlement 
is plausible or legal.
    It negates the penalty of the convicted, allows them a further 
reach into the pockets of their competitor, and, does so at the 
consumers1 expense.
    By accepting the Microsoft proposal, you would take revenues 
from one of the most innovative companies in the computer industry. 
Apple Computers, Inc. They are known and respected in both the 
educational and business fields as a forerunner... one to look at, 
and emulate. Windows itself is an emulation, or, to be more precise, 
a copy of the Mac Graphic user interface. The reason Apple is known 
as forerunners is because they ``look beyond the box''. Apple is 
known for going to great expense for their research and development. 
Many competitors in the Windows community openly (and proudly) copy 
the applications, interface design, or characteristics unique to 
Apple or Mac Computers. . Apple will not be able to continue its 
innovative and respected history without sales, and, as you know, 
Apple sells large amounts of computers in the educational market. 
they are number one in sales for 16 of 17 years in this field. By 
allowing Microsoft a 1 billion dollar foothold into this field, you 
are announcing the downfall of a great computer company.
    Thank you for allowing me to share my personal feelings on this 
matter. Please do NOT allow Microsoft to flood our educational 
market with outdated systems. Do not allow them to ``pay'' the 
public back by granting overcharged tech support. Do not allow them 
to take highly needed sales from their competitors in lieu of debt 
repayment. Do not grant them leadership in a field that has never 
been theirs in computing history, at the public1s expense. Lastly, 
and most importantly, do not insult Justice by saying that granting 
Microsoft these unfair advantages, that they will have paid for 
their crime.
    Respectfully,
    John James Travitzky



MTC-00008774

From: HOWMAR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned about the Tunney Act which is before the District 
Court for settlement. It appears to me that the settlement agreed to 
by Microsoft is adequate. It is beyond me why lawyers and weak 
competitors have so much influence as to affect how a great company, 
that has done so much to advance the computor and internet, 
operates. If you will notice the current economic situation and the 
attack on Microsoft corresponds. The settlement should be completed 
and this should be put behind us so the economy will move forward.
    I live in one of the states that has not signed on to the 
settlement and I can tell you that this is only because of the idiot 
that serves as our Attorney General and does not reflect the opinion 
of the people of West Virginia.
    Thanks for your consideration
    Howard Mays
    103 Riverview Lane
    Beckley, WV 25801
    [email protected]



MTC-00008775

From: David J. Loomis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:47pm
Subject: USAGLoomis--David--1023--0102
    46 Cranberry Road
    North Attleboro, Massachusetts 02760
    January 4, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to let you know that I was pleased with the actions 
of your department in reaching a settlement agreement that the 
states can accept. The settlement is fair and reasonable. Through 
the agreement, Microsoft will be a more responsible industry leader 
and can maintain its competitive ability.
    I am an avid user of Microsoft products and services, and feel 
that its innovation has allowed our country to take a lead in the 
world technology market. I agree that the competition should be 
protected, but this does not change the fact that Microsoft has 
achieved success because of the dependability and usefulness of its 
products. Microsoft will share critical information about the 
internal workings of Windows; that is enough protection of the 
competition.
    The agreement is mutually beneficial for Microsoft and the 
competition. As far as I am concerned, I feel it was an overall 
success. Thank you for your efforts, and taking the time to read 
this letter.
    Sincerely,
    David Loomis



MTC-00008776

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In my opinion, the entire Microsoft issue is about money and 
another way for the law profession to ``feather their nest''. It has 
nothing to do with antitrust, monopolies or protecting the ``John Q 
Public''. Microsoft does NOT have monopoly on anything. There are 
several other operating system options available for which the end 
user can use the browser he or she prefers. As a matter of fact, he 
or she can use the browser of choice with Windows!
    I use Microsoft products on a regular basis. It is my choice to 
use these products because, as a developer, my customer base also 
uses Microsoft products and in order for my

[[Page 25070]]

products to function on my customers equipment, I must produce 
software that will work on their equipment. If the customer base 
used Unix, Apple, or O/S 2, I would probably go that route.
    Every dollar Microsoft spends to protect itself from frivolous 
litigation means that I am going to have to spend more for products 
I use. As with taxes, corporations do not pay for the cost of 
litigation-- their customers do! The only winners going this route 
are those folks with ``Esquire'' after their names.
    Please end this as soon as possible. ``Trickle Down Economics'' 
goes both ways, you know!
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Dahlberg
    Carol E. Dahlberg
    145 W Midway Blvd
    Broomfield, CO 80020



MTC-00008777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs & Ladies:
    I feel that Microsoft has been unduly charged in this matter. It 
is my best interest and the USA's that they be allowed to do 
business as they have in the past. I am Window's user and think that 
my economic well being is at stake if you punish them to aid others. 
They must all compete for us consumers, just like all businesses do, 
let them do just that. Bob Tull
    Robert E. Tull
    214 Hollow Road
    LINCOLNTON, NC 28092 , USA
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00008778

From: Wynne Garlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:59pm
Subject: ... and justice for all
    Since when is justice served by punishing the person/company who 
can do it better? This ``lowering of the bar'' makes as much sense 
as flying in an airplane let out to the lowest bidder. If all those 
self-serving competitors of Microsoft want more business let them 
invent it, develop it, prove it, manufacture it, and provide it to 
the market. Right now, the multitude is so pleased with Microsoft's 
efforts that they wait in line to buy and mark their calendars with 
proposed release dates for the latest ``good stuff'' from Microsoft.
    Get with the program!!!
    --Wynne Garlow
    [email protected]



MTC-00008779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is marked for destruction. over the last 225 years our 
government has progressively become more of a destroyer than a 
protector of rights.
    Whether the issue involves a whole industry, a single company, 
or a single individual, the fundamental principle is the same. 
Either people possess the right to their own life (which includes 
the right to trade freely with other men) or, they do not. 
Increasingly, the government's answer has been that they do not.
    The Justice Department's apologists claim that the assault on 
Microsoft (and on hundreds of other companies now facing antitrust 
suits) is necessary to encourage innovation. But how can achievement 
in any field be fostered by attacking and penalizing the achievers? 
Would anyone accept the principles behind the antitrust laws as the 
best rule for running one's own company? The principle that one 
should fire or demote the most successful workers in order to make 
room for the undistinguished ones?
    Would anyone want this to be the standard used by his employer 
when it comes to judging his own work?
    Most people would respond to such a plan with outrage. They 
would recognize it as a destructive injustice, as an assault on 
ability and achievement. Because Microsoft has been more successful 
than its competitors, prosecutors are seeking to impose special 
restrictions on the production and marketing of its products. 
Microsoft's competitors won't face these restrictions.
    Microsoft must be FORCED (in the words of competitor Jim 
Barksdale) to ``play by a different set of rules.'' It is likely 
that these restrictions will be administered by a federal judge, who 
will have the authority to block Bill Gates's future business 
decisions if he decrees that they are ``anti-competitive.'' Finally, 
many of Microsoft's competitors have argued that, because 
Microsoft's Windows operating system is used by so many people, it 
is an ``essential'' product and must be handed over to a separate, 
government-regulated company that will administer it for the 
``public good.'' In other words, because Microsoft has been too 
successful, it must be hobbled, regulated, and... expropriated.
    Is Microsoft a ``monopoly'' Not in the proper, derogatory, 
traditional sense of the term.
    Unlike the old AT&T Bell monopoly, or today's U.S Post Office 
monopoly, Microsoft did not gain its market share by having the 
government outlaw its competitors: Microsoft earned its position in 
the free-market. By being so efficient, Microsoft has earned a 
dominant spot in the market, but this does not mean the company has 
``monopoly power.'' Did Microsoft ``twist the arms'' of its 
competitors? This sloppy metaphor is a vicious lie. Only the 
government has the legal power to twist (and even break) arms. The 
only ``twisting'' Microsoft engaged in was the legitimate practice 
of setting the terms of sale for its property. Today the world's 
wealthiest man, Bill Gates was once an unknown college drop-out with 
big talent, a big ego, and big ideas, but a fairly small bankroll: 
the Geek David facing the Goliath IBM.
    But in time, the capitol markets recognized the talent and 
potential in Gates (in his ideas, his products, and his company). 
The capital markets are a crucial means by which new entrants with 
good ideas and products grow bigger. Creators like Gates are the 
fountainheads of human achievement, but they can not and do not 
create in a vacuum. Workers, suppliers and customers may not match 
their talents, but they're important to their commercial success.
    Has it been forgotten that Microsoft created the products that 
made the market in question possible? Has it been forgotten that 
Microsoft owns the goods it produces? The right to private property 
means the right to hold it, to alter it, to exchange it, that is, to 
control it. Is a firm guilty of controlling its own property? It is 
under antitrust. To prosecute a firm for the right to its own 
property is to obliterate the right to property as such. If laggards 
like (disgruntled rival) Netscape truly had a superior, commercially 
viable array of products, capital would have rushed to its door. 
That capital did not is no fault of Microsoft and no sign of 
coercion.
    Capitalist competition, despite all the derisive descriptions 
given it by critics (such as ``vicious/cut-throat''), is in fact 
voluntary and peaceful.
    Indeed, it entails a significant degree of cooperation and 
coordination (among producers, suppliers -and- customers). This does 
not mean self-sacrifice; capitalist competition is certainly 
vigorous. It is no tea party; nor should it be. It's a competition 
of wits and abilities, not a battle of fists or weapons.
    By what stretch of the imagination does the Department of 
Justice conflate ``arm-twisting'' with Microsoft's refusal to 
license its products to vendors who do not accept its terms? This is 
not coercion because:
    If a vendor refuses Microsoft's offer and walks away (as he is 
free to do), the vendor will be no worse off then if he did not deal 
with Microsoft in the first place. Did Microsoft ``hurt'' 
competitors like Netscape by giving away a free Internet browser 
with its Windows operating system (when Netscape wanted to charge 
you $30)? No more so, then when McDonald's bundles its meat patties 
with a McDonald's bun does it hurt all the bread makers. Such 
actions may frustrate their competitors' wishes, but their rights 
are left untouched.
    Did Microsoft violate the rules of competition? It is the 
application of the political principle of individual Rights-to-the-
Economic-Realm of production (and trade) that gives rise to the 
rules of free-competition. To determine whether Microsoft violated 
the rules of competition; therefore, one has to determine whether 
Microsoft violated anyone's rights. Clearly, Microsoft did not 
violate the rights (life, liberty, and property) of anyone.
    By allowing judges to sidestep the issue of rights in favor of 
considerations, such as the ``public interest'', the antitrust laws 
effectively grant government the power to violate Microsoft's 
rights, i.e. the power to take over and control Microsoft's property 
and use it against Microsoft's interests.
    Thanks to the antitrust laws once a judge has arbitrarily 
classified a business as a ``monopoly'', the government is given 
free rein to:
    --PLUNDER of vast sums of money from Microsoft's bank account 
(through triple fines for so-called ``damages'');
    --REPLACE Bill Gates with a government ``overseer'' who will 
make the important strategic decisions at Microsoft;
    --FORCE Microsoft to advertise and distribute its competitor's 
products;

[[Page 25071]]

    --COMPEL Microsoft to give up its ``trade secrets'' and 
intellectual property to those who condemn it.
    From start to finish, the entire antitrust process is no more 
than a process of sacrificing and cannibalizing successful American 
businesses (such as Microsoft, ALCOA, US Steel, Standard Oil) on the 
guillotine of egalitarianism to appease envious competitors. Or, to 
quote Alan Greenspan, who (upon a complete examination of the theory 
and history of the antitrust laws) wrote: ``the effective purpose, 
the hidden intent, -and- the actual practice of the antitrust laws 
in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive 
and efficient members of our society BECAUSE they are productive and 
efficient.''
    KEY ISSUE
    Key issue in Microsoft antitrust case is not ``consumer 
welfare'' or ``innovation'' but individual rights. The growing 
economy has been the result of the simple fact that until now, the 
government has stayed out of the way of high tech. The creators 
recognize that wealth is created, not seized.
    Did Microsoft halt ``innovation''? (the process of discovering a 
better way to do things)? No private business can stop other 
companies from innovating except by out-innovating them. Harm to 
consumers has nothing to do with the purpose of antitrust. One of 
the government's main complaints was that Microsoft was providing 
free copies of its Internet browser. (Only someone working for the 
government could conclude that free products are bad for consumers). 
Antitrust case law is replete with examples of companies being 
punished (not for any alleged harm) but simply for having the acumen 
to remain successful in their industries. The antitrust laws are 
intended only to punish ``power''. But since economic power is 
earned on the free market, this means that the purpose of antitrust 
is to punish successful business practices. Given this legal 
context, Microsoft was doomed before it even set foot in the 
courtroom. Applying the underlying anti-success principle of 
antitrust, the ruling against Microsoft was... without finding ANY 
harm at all!
    The reason that Microsoft is an extremely successful company? 
Gates is a unique combination of technological genius and 
businessman, reminiscent of earlier American giants like Thomas 
Edison. Thus, it was irrelevant how hard Microsoft's attorneys 
worked, or how much intellectual vigor they brought to their legal 
briefs and courtroom arguments.
    These things were irrelevant because NO army of lawyers could 
hide a single, essential fact (the only fact necessary for applying 
the antitrust laws): Microsoft succeeds at what it does. The 
punishment doled out for success is paralysis. Judge Jackson's 
absurd conclusion? Microsoft must not be permitted to capitalize 
upon its well-earned success. Because it has created values, it must 
now... relinquish them. The Microsoft case is (at its heart) an 
attempt to impose socialist central planning on the computer 
industry. And worse, to do so in an anarchic, ad-hoc manner, one 
federal court ruling at a time. Contrary to the statist theories of 
the demand-side Keynesian economists (who are quoted daily by the 
media), it is corporate investment that strengthens America (through 
the creation of jobs and wealth), NOT spending by the government.
    Production drives consumption, not vice versa.
    Yet corporate America is derided as ``big business'' or ``the 
wealthiest 1%'', (make that: the most productive 1%). And some 
members of Congress would rather fund their ``entitlements'' on the 
backs of the most productive group in our nation. It is immoral to 
penalize corporations -and- the wealthy (the productive) with higher 
taxes and then redistribute their property (which they earned and 
others did not) to those who didn't create it just because ``the 
wealthy' can afford it'' (and, therefore, are less equal inder the 
law. Economic power is the power to create and produce. Political 
power is the power to coerce and punish. Economic power entails 
intellectual achievement. Political power entails physical 
aggrandizement.
    Economic power involves voluntary trade to mutual advantage, 
trade with whomever you choose to deal and with whoever chooses to 
deal with you. Unlike political power, which entails fear and 
punishment, economic power means the offering of incentives and 
rewards. Economic power is the power of a dollar (how many you earn 
and how many you can spend determines the extent of your ``power''). 
Political power involves involuntary subjugation to the state, which 
has sole discretion over the use of force.
    In a free society, government may ONLY use its power in 
retaliation against those who initiate force or fraud.
    Unless it seeks tyranny, no government may use such power to 
itself initiate force or fraud against innocent parties. To the 
extent it does, it acts as a robber or a gang. But far worse: a 
robber or gang with no higher, legal authority above, controlling 
it. Economic power is wholly innocent of any hint of the initiation 
of force (or even of retaliatory force). Productive giants such as 
Carnegie, Ford and Gates don't just have less power than politicians 
or pose less danger than tyrants. They have NO political power at 
all and present no danger whatsoever.
    Political power, at root, is the power of a gun, of the police, 
the military, the taxman, and the jailer. If you flout the law 
(whether a just law or an anti-trust law) you must submit. But no 
one ``must'' submit to a business proposition.
    Not even from... Bill Gates.
    Capitalism (the social system based on the principle of 
individual rights), is not merely the `practical', but the only 
moral system in history.
    No politico-economic system has ever proved its value so 
eloquently or has benefitted mankind so greatly. And none has ever 
been attacked so savagely, viciously, and blindly. The flood of 
misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright 
falsehood is a terrible injustice. If they want to break Microsoft, 
let THEM come in with the guns and do it themselves; let THEM figure 
out how to do it.
    The Microsoft antitrust suit is a case of politicians destroying 
one of America's most successful companies just to satisfy the 
demands of its rivals. What an obscene travesty! Microsoft, a 
leading producer using voluntary cooperation is derided as a 
coercive thug.
    Meanwhile its puny rivals (puny because they couldn't sell their 
inferior products) are permitted to wield actual coercive power, 
with the full backing of the world's most powerful government, 
worse, from that government's ``Justice'' Department.
    N. White



MTC-00008781

From: Bob Lindinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
re. United States v. 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. Per my 
rights under the Tunney Act, I am writing to express my opinion that 
the Microsoft antitrust case should be settled as quickly as 
possible, rather than litigated further. I am very pleased with the 
proposed settlement; it is tough, but reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved.
    I am a consumer that uses many Microsoft products, including 
their Windows operating system. I have never felt ?harmed? by 
Microsoft, on the contrary, I believe that their business practice 
is based on a virtuous, positive feed-back, business cycle based on 
very low price points leading to very high sales volume. This 
business model ideally suits the consumer who benefits from low 
prices.
    Microsoft has always designed software for mass consumption. 
Bill Gates realized early on, that if he could design software 
suitable for a mass market, he could sell it at very low prices and 
make profits based on large unit sales. Excess profits could be 
reinvested in innovation and R&D to improve the software and make it 
more attractive to consumers and businesses. Hence, the positive 
feedback cycle.
    That is why Windows has been such a huge success. Windows is 
excellent software priced very reasonably. Each version becomes more 
user-friendly and powerful, with new features to make it easier to 
browse the Internet, work with digital photographs, digital music, 
etc.
    I believe there can be no monopoly in software. If Microsoft 
fails to continually improve Windows, a competitor will eventually 
emerge that offers a better operating system at a lower price. 
Already we are seeing the emergence of an alternative operating 
system offered for ``free'' by Linux. This is gaining wide 
acceptance in some business circles and, if Microsoft were to stop 
improving Windows, it would only be a matter of time before Linux or 
some other alternative from Sun, IBM, Apple, Sony, Computer 
Associates, SAP (the German software giant),or many other 
competitors, would start taking market share from Microsoft.
    I do not dispute that Microsoft, right now, has a ?monopoly? for 
desktop personal

[[Page 25072]]

computer operating systems. However, Microsoft earned it by 
constantly innovating and keeping prices low. Other competitors have 
demonstrated that they can compete with Microsoft. Netscape was not 
inhibited from developing its browser, that threatened Microsoft's 
position. Sun Microsystems has developed its Java language and is 
promoting it aggressively.
    I believe the saying that high tech is a contact sport that 
should only be played in the marketplace, not in the courts. 
Microsoft's competitors are the one's pushing for further 
litigation, not consumers or businesses that use Microsoft products.
    The competitors would have us believe that no one can compete 
with the mighty Microsoft. I guess they don't remember all those 
prime-time TV commercials a few years ago for OS/2, that dandy 
little operating system from a wee little start-up called 
International Business Machines (IBM). But guess what? Nobody bought 
OS/2, because it was expensive and not as good as Windows.
    Lindows.com is preparing to launch early next year an operating 
system that can run both Linux and Windows applications on a PC, or 
run as a second operating system on a Windows machine. The point: to 
offer an alternative to Windows, to eliminate the frustrations that 
Lindows.com's CEO, Robertson, says accompany installation and use of 
the Linux operating system, and to let Windows users run Linux 
programs without having to jettison Windows. If that's not different 
enough, he'll sell the Lindows operating system for just $99, 
primarily in digital format, and with flexible licensing.
    Clearly, Microsoft must continuously innovate to fend off 
competition. Those labeling Microsoft a monopolist just do not 
understand how quickly a ``monopoly'' can vanish in the world of 
high technology. Our country would be served well if the antitrust 
case against Microsoft is settled as quickly as possible. It will be 
good for our high tech industry, and be in the best interest of 
consumers'supposedly the intended beneficiaries of any antitrust 
litigation.
    Finally, on a personal note, I think Scott McNealy is the 
biggest crybaby the business world has ever seen. I also think Larry 
Ellison should get a life and stop worrying about his relative net 
worth compared to that of Bill Gates. Neither of these high tech 
CEOs have Bill Gate's vision for providing software to empower the 
masses and they both are trying to use the courts to gain a 
competitive advantage. In the words of our President, George W. 
Bush, let's innovate, not litigate.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Lindinger
    Schenectady, NY
    CC:Halpy,Big Al,Anne,BamBam,Barry,Big Ed,Damian Thoma...



MTC-00008782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. I agree with Microsoft and it's platform 
users. If the system works and I bought it by choice over all of the 
other platforms out there why is this settlement still up in the 
air. I am entitled to buy the best I can find and it is in my power 
to use or not to use all of the functions in this system. Settle 
this and stop throwing my money at the lawyers.
    John R. Cox



MTC-00008783

From: Patricia Duchene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think its time we moved on the settlement identified by the 
Justice department is more than fair for the Federal Government and 
the States. I resent a few states holding large companies hostage 
because of their own interests and at the expense of the remaing 
States and American people. Its your responsibility to see that a 
minority group does not gain advantage at the expense of the 
majority. Make them settle or walk away with what they really 
deserve nothing.
    Have a great day
    P Duchene



MTC-00008784

From: Margaret Rosser Durso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    USDOJ:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is very fair and I am 
outraged that the 9 states are continuing legal action. This is a 
wonderful company that has made a major contribution to this country 
and to all consumers.
    Please do all possible to settle with Microsoft as recently 
proposed. This will be good for the economy, the stock market and 
for all consumers...
    Respectfully,
    Margaret Durso



MTC-00008785

From: robert garner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It's time to settle this matter. Futher action is detrimental to 
the economy and the consumer. An all out effort is needed to get the 
economy growing again.
    Thanks,
    R.E. Garner



MTC-00008786

From: Uncle Dimi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:47pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I reside in San Diego and I primarily use my computer for 
personal home use. I just wanted to send this e-mail to express my 
opinion that it is time to let this suit against Microsoft come to 
an end. If indeed this proceeding was begun on the behalf of 
consumers like me, then consider this CA consumer satisfied. The 
settlement may not be perfect, but assuming enforcement authorities 
remain vigilant, I think it's worth taking the risk that Microsoft 
will behave.
    I recently purchased a new Dell laptop and couldn't help but 
notice the preinstalled shortcuts on my desktop that directed me to 
Dell associated programs and services. If Dell can do this, then why 
is it wrong for Microsoft to incorporate programs and services in 
their operating system? I'm an average consumer, but I understand 
that whenever I enter a store or a desktop environment I will be 
subjected to promotional displays and crossmarketing efforts. 
Sometimes I may be seduced by these efforts, other times I will 
ignore them and search for a more satisfactory product or service. 
The choice is ultimately mine, and regardless of Microsoft's or 
other tech companies' efforts to direct my choices, the internet 
still provides unfettered access to an amazingly large and varied 
``department store'' so to speak.
    So, I'll wind it up by saying that if this settlement is 
sufficient to keep Microsoft feeling like the spotlight is always on 
them, which I think it is, then let's move on. Frankly, I'm getting 
tired of hearing about this suit. In the overall scheme of things, I 
may feel annoyed by some of Microsoft's activities and products, but 
I definitely do not feel gouged or ripped off by them. When it comes 
down to it, I most likely would not have adopted the use of a 
computer years ago if Windows had not made it so easy by unifying or 
monopolizing, if you will, the software world.
    Do I want more choice? Probably. Do I want interoperability? 
Most definitely yes. Do I think I will suddenly get these things by 
continued efforts to deliver Microsoft's head on a platter. Not 
really. So I respectfully request that you make this settlement work 
and let's move on.
    Thank you,
    Dimitri C. Demopoulos



MTC-00008787

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I have been a computer programmer for most of my adult life, and 
I have seen many operating systems come and go; but I have never 
seen an environment so restrictive for innovation and competition as 
the one currently created my Microsoft. It is true that most of the 
work that I do is based on Windows systems of one kind or another, 
but it is equally true that most of my clients would benefit greatly 
if other avenues were available to them on a non-restrictive basis. 
Please notice that I do not say on a non-competetive basis. 
Microsoft has managed to negotiate contracts with hardware 
manufacturers and software developers alike which tend to suppress 
competetive products--and in many cases more able and far less 
expensive products.
    I encourage you, as a part if this settlement, to not allow 
Microsoft to strongarm developers so that their products are 
preferentially available only to Windows users. If a developer has 
good economic reasons to develop only for Windows, that is one 
thing, but if the same developer refuses or is not allowed to 
develop for other environments purely because of financial or public 
relations threats from Microsoft, it is quite another thing , 
indeed.
    Please pay attention to the evidence presented by the 
prosecutors in this trial and

[[Page 25073]]

equitable and effective controls on the most clear monopoly of our 
time.
    Larry S. Cadle



MTC-00008788

From: Santos, Charles
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/4/02  7:50 pm
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 definition 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> ``>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,
    Charles Santos



MTC-00008789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  7:53 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Get this class action out of the courts. Clinton is gone, why 
carry on with this. Now we have to contend with all these terrorists 
being tried in Federal Courts. Make way for them, Leave Bill Gates 
alone. Get on with your life



MTC-00008790

From: craiggua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:02 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I read through the Revised Proposed Final Judgement and 
Competitive Impact Statement.
    In the the Revised Proposed Final Judgement, Section III 
``Prohibited Conduct'' should thoroughly prohibit Microsoft from 
engaging in these business practices. Also, the ``Compliance and 
Enforcement Procedures'' which includes the Technical Committee, 
should provide enough insight into Microsoft's compliance to the 
final judgement.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgement also seems to provide a 
reasonable balance. Consumers receive a widely used operating system 
platform (i.e: Windows) that an OEM can freely include any number of 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft applications. It will also allow 
Microsoft to continue to provide consumers with an innovative 
operating system and applications in the future.
    I encourage you to accept the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
    Thank you,
    Craig Guarraci



MTC-00008791

From: Doc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:13p m
Subject: It's called...
    It is called capitalism. And in it's purest form there is a 
demand, Microsoft meets it and in return: money, power, etc. I am 
sorry for the competition being behind the curve to the point of 
helplessness. So be it!
    That is life. And many people experience that in far more 
painful ways everyday. Now, attempting to somehow mangle Microsoft's 
position via government ``intervention'' suggest we live in some 
Orwellian home of the free, land of the brave. So in this beautiful 
Republic (that we call Democratic) land of existence I leave the 
following: It is so very pleasant to see the ``perceived'' economic 
elite get porked and pissed (without so much as a...hug) by someone 
of higher economic status than they! Uncle Sammy, please help poor 
pitiful pampered me!! Ah, those beautiful sounds of children 
playing; they only squeal when life, on those rare occasions, 
doesn't go there way.
    Take care (and don't forget to write),
    Preston Alan Rouse
    Citizen



MTC-00008792

From: Christie Sharpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:13 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion as a computer user that this settlement is a 
good and necessary end to this case. Schools will benefit which is 
never a bad thing. Please consider all the positives of bringing 
this case to an end.



MTC-00008793

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:27 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    A just and viable settlement has been reached. Enough with this 
supreme waste of resources litigating this matter. Expend the gov't 
time and our money on real violations.
    Brian Grimm



MTC-00008794

From: Don Conrard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:34 pm

[[Page 25074]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir
    I would like to add my voice to those urging the court to accept 
the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Federal goverment 
in the anti-trust case. With the U.S. under attack by terrorists and 
our economy in a downturn, a settlement would help to restore 
confidence in the technology sector when it is needed most. I am 
concerned that the continuation of this case and the uncertainty it 
generates will have a very negative effect on any economic recovery. 
It is time to end this case, which was largely brought by failed 
competitors of Microsoft. It would be good for the country, good for 
the economy, good for consumers and benefit the Seattle area. Don 
Conrard 12021 N.E. 67th. St. Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00008795

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:37 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the Microsoft Settlement and want to just move on.
    The Stewart Family



MTC-00008796

From: Cheryl A. Shapiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:45 pm
    In my opinion, this settlement is fair an equitable to all 
parties involved.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl A. Shapiro



MTC-00008797

From: Rachel LeVasseur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:47 pm
Subject: Microsoft
    -- Rachel LeVasseur
    -- [email protected]
    The time is past due to settle the Microsoft case. This ongoing 
case is not good for the economy, and we don't need the government 
interfering with private business because a few private interest are 
jealous!!!!



MTC-00008798

From: Jamie Rife
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  8:49 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The settlement is fair. It should not have dragged on this long. 
To say one company has a monopoly in this highly technical world is 
impossible.



MTC-00008799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:03 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Justice proposal regarding Microsoft is fair and 
just. I encourage you to accept it as the final solution. R. M.
    Butler, M.D.



MTC-00008800

From: William Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:08 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices
    As a Consumer I have been using Microsoft's systems for what 
seems like forever and have never been forced into purchasing, 
accepting or being stuck with anything that I did not want, there 
were always alternative programs and systems available to me as a 
free consumer if I so chose to do so. As a Small Business Owner and 
user of Microsoft products and systems that have been made available 
to me, I found these programs and systems to be less expensive and 
more user friendly than other non Microsoft programs and systems. My 
business relies heavily on the cost savings that the Microsoft 
systems have afforded me and don't understand why Myself and 
thousands of other small business owners should be penalized to 
satisfy the desires of a Microsoft Competitor. I feel that it is 
time to accept the terms set and get on with the job of building the 
economy back to a point that produces jobs and revenue for the 
country.
    Thank You for Your Time
    Bill Cook
    Cook Consulting



MTC-00008801

From: Seth Alford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:24 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement insufficient
    The proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is insufficient. It 
doesn't punish Microsoft for its past mis-deeds, and in some ways 
allows them to extend their monopoly further, by allowing them to 
give their software to poorer schools across the nation.
    The proposal by the remaining 9 states who are opposed to the 
DOJ settlement, written by Sullivan and Kuney of Williams & Connolly 
LLP, Greene of the California's AG office, and Davis of the West 
Virginia's AG office, addresses Microsoft's anti-trust violations 
and offers appropriate remedies.
    I read this proposal at http://www.naag.org/features/microsoft/
ms-remedy--filing.pdf The Sullivan et al. proposed remedy should be 
applied to Microsoft. That remedy will result in better competition 
and benefit for consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Seth D. Alford
    [email protected]
    --Seth Alford
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008802

From: Raymond Vath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:30 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It has been four years since Microsoft's competitors (not 
customers) began the attack on Microsoft. It is clear we customers 
have benefited from the excellence of Microsoft's products and at 
very low prices. If the competitors could come up with superior 
products, we would beat a path to their door. The Department of 
Justice has negotiated an agreement with Microsoft that should be 
accepted. If others want to continue to harass the company, let them 
do it in their own trial, with their own funds, not my tax money.
    Raymond E. Vath, MD



MTC-00008803

From: Judy & Marko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:34 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It is about time that the case against Microsoft be closed and 
settled. Our economic recovery requires that innovative and 
prosperous companies be allowed to function without unnecessary 
litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Monette



MTC-00008804

From: Diana Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:35 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel that subject settlement is fair and that should not be 
further litigated.
    Jack Burton
    Granbury TX
    Diana Burton
    Granbury TX



MTC-00008805

From: C. gus St. John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:42 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Is it concidence that the current downturn in the economy began 
when the Clinton/Reno ``Justice'' Dept began the attack on 
Microsoft? I have no particular love for Microsoft or Bill Gates, 
but what is the alternative for Windows? Windows is a God-awful 
kludge but the alternative, which is a managable kludge, is used on 
only about five percent of the worlds computers. Apple is better but 
the changeover would cost more than Bill Gates has.
    Regards,
    C. Gus St. John
    6449 Elmer Hill Road
    Rome, NY 13440
    [email protected]



MTC-00008806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:49 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    to the Dept of Justice; this will define my position on the 
Microsoft settlement.
    I believe that Microsoft is being unfairly punished for acting 
in the best interest of the business, its shareholders and the 
public. The accusations of monopolistic business practices have 
largely come from it's competitors and those with business interests 
who would best be served if Microsoft were much less sucessful, as 
well as those whose political interests would be served by damaging 
the corporation. There is also a segment of the US population who 
are opposed to the capitalistic ethic and those who are very 
sucessful. The very existence of Microsoft's operating system has 
created the potential for our economy and the world to finally 
benefit from the power of computing.
    Prior to the Microsoft operating system and ancilliary software 
related to it, there was NO compatibility among hardware, software, 
peripheral equipment, and communication

[[Page 25075]]

systems. IBM, Unisys, NCR, le Machines Bull, RCA, ATT, ITT, and the 
entire universe of others world-wide, demanded that their own 
parochial architecture be maintained. By Microsoft creating this 
``de facto'' standard the entire world information arena has been 
opened to a universal ability to share, communicate, compute, and 
manipulate information in a way that prior to this standard would 
have been impossible.
    I am astounded that the minds of this political system fail to 
recognize the subterfuge planned by the anti-microsoft proponents to 
return us to the neanderthal stoneage of incompatibility. The entire 
computing user universe must have compatibility to continue to exist 
in our current environment. To require Microsoft to provide 
interfaceability standards to the user/competitor population is 
reasonable. To force them to reveal corporate trade secrets is to 
participate in criminal homicide of sucessful capitalism by 
government. What's next, nationalization of our strongest, 
healthiest corporate entities?
    Microsoft is one of the only technology companies which has 
survived the recent recession. It is because of the inherent value 
of it's products and services. Please do not commit economic suicide 
for all of us with unreasonable punishment for crimes not comitted, 
but cast up by those in the market place who are unable to compete 
sucessfully in that market.
    Chip Reylek
    421 Criswell Drive
    Boiling Springs, PA 17007, USA
    717.258.5378



MTC-00008807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:51 pm
Subject: Microfsoft settlement
    I am very much opposed to the government attempting to destroy a 
wonderful company like Microsoft. It sees as though every time a 
company manages to grow large on it's own, our government feels it 
has a duty to destroy it. Take for instance the ``Bell System 
Telephone Company.'' It was one of the most admired company on the 
face of the earth, and then our government got in the act and ever 
since it has become a disaster. There is a saying to which I 
subscribe. ``I love my country, it's the government that I am afraid 
of.'' Nothing could be more truthful.
    I say ``LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE!''
    Richard Morgan
    Federal Way, Washington



MTC-00008809

From: sandra d shimkus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:00 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I as a concerned citizen would hope that the settlement between 
the DOJ and Microsoft will finally be settled. Enough time and money 
has been spent on this subject.
    Thank You.
    Stanley J. Shimkus
    27031-59th. AV. NE.
    Arlington, WA. 98223
    [email protected]



MTC-00008810

From: Al Wedekind
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  9:54 pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Litigation of the subject has gone on long enough. In fact I 
think it should never have started!



MTC-00008811

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:07 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Gentlemen, my wife and I believe that the proposed settlement if 
fair and just to not only to Microsoft, but to this Country. 
Microsoft has been a pillar of this economy over the past years, let 
this company help us out now.
    Marcia & Joseph Reisman,
    Brooklyn, NY



MTC-00008812

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:10 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To the Department of Justice:
    I am in full agreement that the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the Dept. Of Justice and nine states be ratified and 
settled. This litigation must be settled, so that both Microsoft and 
consumers can go forward.
    Theresa C. Gernhard



MTC-00008813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:12 pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    We think the present settlement should not be further litigated 
by the nine disgruntled states. If Ford puts a better generator in 
its cars, General Motors has no right to call ``foul'' and go to 
court. The reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling 
should be the end of the line.
    Joseph and Doris
    Levine



MTC-00008814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:19 pm
Subject: Please accept the settlement and let us move forward
    Please accept the settlement and let us move forward with life!



MTC-00008815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:21 pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I say congratulations to the Court and to Microsoft for settling 
this. I think free enterprise must continue.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008816

From: Steven Gniazdowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:21 pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Hello. My name is Steven Gniazdowski. I am a college student 
majoring in Computer Systems Engineering. I have used, and will 
continue to use Microsoft and non-Microsoft products.
    Microsoft does put out a quality product. However, just due to 
the fact that they happen to be the software giant they are does not 
mean they are allowed to break anti-trust laws. Settling with 
Microsoft is only surrendering.
    Microsoft has committed a crime and should be prosecuted to the 
full extent of the law. I feel that the Department of Justice should 
continue to prosecute Microsoft. Thank you for your time.
    Steven Gniazdowski



MTC-00008817

From: bill conlen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:22 pm
    DOJ,
    I will be happy to see the MS antitrust case end with the 
approval of the negotiated settlement. I think the settlement, if 
enforced, will correct the abuses of MS. The case represents a drag 
on the economy and on technological inovation. It is time to 
conclude it.
    Bill Conlen
    Tacoma WA



MTC-00008818

From: Kenneth McGarvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If the certain far eastern countries computer industry had 
succeeded in their attempts at setting the standard in not only 
computer language/software and also the computers themselves, in the 
mid 1980s, then the price we all would have to pay for computers and 
the ancillary equipment would be much higher.
    Also the effects on the U.S.A. balance of payments would have 
been catastrophic. I am speaking with no particular interest to 
pursue, in that I am a British subject and as such am speaking out 
for what I believe is the benefit of most of the computer using 
public. If the proposed break up of Microsoft goes ahead, it will 
mean higher charges for all of us that use computers, it is only 
because of the scale of the Microsoft operation that prices can be 
held so low and that the company can offer what is genuine free 
software.
    Microsoft are not a monopoly and in fact there are many other 
competing software companies in the market place all offering 
varying products compatible to and some times superior to 
Microsoft's. What few in the courts realize is in the mid 1980s 
around six or seven of the far eastern electronic companies banded 
together to try and formulate a standard system that as stated 
above, would then have dominated the whole of the worlds computer 
industry. If they had succeeded then IBM, Apple, Sun Systems, Java 
and all the other great US and none Pacific Rim computer makers and 
software houses would not be in existence today, or if they where 
they would be mere fractions of the companies they are. So please 
think on

[[Page 25076]]

these points when making your decision on the future of Microsoft. I 
state once again that it is only by being good at what they do, 
added to the scale of their enterprise, that enables Microsoft to 
offer reasonable products at prices the general public can afford. 
We would all be a lot less comfortable in technical terms if 
Microsoft had not gained an early lead in computer technology. Again 
I ask you to bear in mind the fact that Microsoft has earned 
Billions of dollars for you country, do not kill the hen that has 
laid the golden eggs for yourselves if you do you risk the threat of 
all previous great civilizations.
    Think of the Greeks, Romans and even ancient Egyptians do not 
kill what is good not always right but am sure Microsoft does 
attempt to get it right most times. So should your legislature and 
rule for the keeping of Microsoft intact as it is. And long my it go 
from strength to strength.
    Ken McGarvey 04.01.02
    My phone number 44 1642550833



MTC-00008819

From: Pat Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American consumer, I would like to encourage all parties 
involved to ACCEPT the proposed settlement between the DOJ, the 9 
states, and Microsoft. The settlement seems to be a FAIR COMPROMISE, 
and it is important for the country and the economy to get this case 
behind us. Furthermore, I would encourage the judge in the case to 
compel the non-settling states to join the agreed upon settlement as 
well.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Fox
    7808 79th Ave SE
    Mercer Island, WA 98040



MTC-00008820

From: Avedis Garavanian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:25pm
Subject: Please settle and keep innovation ALIVE!
    Please settle and keep innovation ALIVE!



MTC-00008821

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:31pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think that just because Microsoft is big and successful it has 
become a target. This company has done more to develop the computer 
industry than anyone else. Other companies, Sun Microsystems, 
Oracle, Enron, Lucent, Apple, etc. etc. have been able to compete 
and be successful too. Leave Microsoft alone and let it put money 
into research and development, not lawyers pockets. Instead of being 
jealous and resentful of Microsoft, try buying some stock in it. (I 
did) I'm a little guy and this lawsuit would be hurting me too. I 
don't know all the details, but my vote is to please leave this 
company alone. Enough is enough.



MTC-00008822

From: Bill Eckerich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As ordinary citizens, we feel the current settlement terms are 
fair, just and send the right message to Microsoft.
    Unfortunately, a few people and corporations , for various 
reasons, are seeking to prolong the proceedings under the guise that 
the settlement is not fair. We see their reasons much differently. 
As for the various Attorneys General, we see only a political motive 
designed toward re-election or a hunger for higher office.
    As for the competitors, they found themselves unable to compete 
and are trying to make up for their lack of ability in this way.
    We are particularly chagrined over the stance taken by Senator 
Hatch. Although he is taking this position to try to gain advantage 
for one of his constituents, he should be mindful of the economic 
loss created by the delay and costs for the total economy,as well as 
the fairness.
    Thank you for your consideration of our position.
    William and Joyce Eckerich



MTC-00008823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone already! They have made concessions to the 
cry babies both to their competitors and with the state legislators. 
Let's grow up and stop crying sour grapes that Microsoft and Bill 
Gates have produced better software than their peers and that the 
consume wins. Were it not for Microsoft, this would be typed on an 
old electric typewriter on onion skin paper and stuffed in an 
envelope sent postage paid through the mail and probably given the 
US Post office would never be delivered anyway thus stopping the 
consumers, public, and voters by the way from expressing their 
opinions under the first amendment, which by the way you can find 
using Microsoft explorer the defamed browser. Thanks again Bill 
(Gates not Clinton) for all the great work. Keep it up and keep the 
US moving forward!



MTC-00008824

From: Bo Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is about time that this circus comes to an end. We now have 
more urgent problems as a nation. Get it over with already!!!!!



MTC-00008825

From: Shirley Sidis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    Dear DOJ,
    In regard to the Microsoft Litigation which has been going on 
for almost four years, both my wife and I feel that its about time 
that both sides settle this case and get on with our daily lives. 
This case has really hurt the economy, for the sake of our country 
and the economy it should be settled now.
    Sincerely,
    Sam and Shirley Sidis



MTC-00008826

From: Larry Putnam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I just want to let you know that I feel that it 
is imperative that the action taken to settle the suit against 
Microsoft be adhered to as has been put down by the District Court 
of Appeals. This needs to come to a close so that Microsoft can get 
back to the business of doing what they do best and the Justice 
Department can spend its time on more important matters to our 
country.
    Sincerely,
    Larry D. Putnam
    Chattanooga, Tn 37412



MTC-00008827

From: Robert(u)Jann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I am concerned that the remedy for the Microsoft 
anti-trust case will be worse than any harm Microsoft may have 
caused.
    Specifically, I think we all had better phone service before the 
break-up of AT&T. Now I am diluged with phone companies offering low 
rates and then once I have changed carriers jacking up the price. I 
preferred to have my phone service lumped into one seamless bundle, 
because in the end it is more efficient than the mess we have right 
now.
    I am afraid the same thing will happen with the remedy for 
Microsoft. I prefer a software package that includes features by one 
software company because INTEGRATION is do important to software. 
The more chefs there are the greater the probability for soup bugs 
and finger pointing.
    I think Microsoft is offering a valuable service to the public 
by offering integrated software solutions.
    SYs
    Robert--Jann@msn



MTC-00008828

From: david milton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is good for everyone. lets get this over 
so we can make the next big leap in tech and pull this country out 
of this recession.
    Thanks
    David Milton,
    5728 meadowhaven Dr,
    Plano, TX 75093



MTC-00008829

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:00pm
Subject: (no subject)
    As a private citizen, I would like to urge the DOJ to quit 
working against private business and let free enterprise seek it's 
own level.
    Hal Dennis



MTC-00008830

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25077]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Morning,
    Please consider dropping all further action against Microsoft. 
The free market produced the computer revolution and the tremendous 
gains to the standard of living of most Americans. Please do nothing 
to interfere with the free working of the market. And especially 
stay out of computers and software.
    Thanks for your consideration,
    Mike Spalding



MTC-00008831

From: Bob Boysen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Education Market Settlement
    As a Microsoft Windows XP user and a Macintosh OS X user, and 
although I enjoy running both operating systems, I think it is a 
mistake to allow an anti-trust settlement against Microsoft Corp 
with the result being additional free Windows based computers in our 
nation's schools. This certainly is a slap in the face of Apple 
Computer Co who has for years worked tirelessly with the schools to 
provide educational equipment. If the one of the main concerns in 
the suit against Microsoft was due to a ``perceived'' monopolistic 
endeavor on their part, the solution, in my opinion, is not to 
provide them with an even greater field of play for their product. 
This would certainly stifle competition which I believe is the 
Department's exact opposite position in this matter. If the schools 
choose PCs with the Windows operating system-- so be it.
    If they prefer Apple Computer's operating system--so be it. Let 
the United States Government NOT be a party against open market 
competition.
    Thank you.
    Bob Boysen
    Las Vegas, Nevada



MTC-00008832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to express my opinion on the DOJ s trial and settlement. 
The settlement reached by Microsoft and the DOJ appear to me to be 
the best compromise to a case that has not hurt the consumer but has 
hurt ``the completion''. For the nine States to continue to use the 
Courts to extend the case beyond the limits prescribed by the 
Appeals court is in my opinion a grave waste of the taxpayers hard 
earned money. And a waste of the court's time and energy for the 
private gains of the companies located in or adjacent to the States 
not happy with the DoJ Settlement. Please do everything you can to 
Stop the Litigation of Microsoft and allow them and America to get 
on with innovations for the next generation of products that 
revolutionize the USA and the World.
    Wilson S Hamilton
    Pres.
    L and W SERVICES
    ISSAQUAH, WA
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008833

From: Joel Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and avid computer user it is obvious 
to me that Microsoft has been a blessing for many years. The overall 
quality and consistency of their products make my professional and 
personal life much easier. The LAST thing in the world I need is 
lot's of operating systems and web browsers and communications 
protocols to have to investigate, learn and then choose between. It 
is my opinion that Microsoft has become as important to the market 
place as they have, in essence, because they make good products that 
everyone is basically satisfied using.
    The proposal to break Microsoft apart terrified me. What effects 
would that have had on my business and my personal affairs? It was 
frightening to consider!
    The revised settlement is, in my opinion, still unwarranted but, 
in the spirit of ``getting on'' with things I would support 
executing the current settlement without further delay.
    Joel E. Davis
    PO Box 6118
    Hillsborough, NJ 08844



MTC-00008834

From: Wilbur Goodwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02  11:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To: The US Department of Justice
    I am writing to you today to express my opinions in regard to 
the Microsoft debate in accordance with US law, i.e., the Tunney 
Act, which requires a public comment period that expires on January 
28, 2002. I fully support Microsoft and am anxious to see this 
protracted three-year dispute between Microsoft and the US Federal 
Government resolved once and for all. Despite the aggressive 
lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's competitors, the US Federal 
Government and nine states finally reached a comprehensive agreement 
with Microsoft to address the reduced liability found in the US 
Court of Appeals ruling. I support the settlement that was reached 
on November 2, 2001, and sincerely hope that there will be no 
further action taken against Microsoft at the Federal level.
    This settlement is tough, but reasonable, equitable and fair to 
all parties involved. It has been reached after extensive 
negotiations, and it allows Microsoft to continue designing and 
marketing its innovative software, while benefiting the technology 
industry as a whole. Under this agreement, Microsoft must disclose 
information about certain internal interfaces in Windows to 
competing companies. Microsoft has pledged to carry out all 
provisions of this agreement, and the government has created a 
technical oversight committee to insure Microsoft compliance. While 
I personally am strongly opposed to any company being legally forced 
to disclose its company sensitive or proprietary information, I 
firmly believe that consumers overwhelmingly agree that this 
settlement is the best alternative for them, the industry and the 
American economy, under the circumstances.
    Unfortunately, a few ``special interests'' are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the proposed 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. In 
my opinion, If Microsoft's competitors had expended more time, 
energy and financial resources in acquiring, nurturing and 
maintaining a strong technical base of innovative skills, and less 
on litigation, they wouldn't have had to resort to such costly legal 
tactics in the first place. If they can't compete on their own 
volition, then maybe they shouldn't be in the business!
    In closing, I want to reiterate that I strongly believe that 
this settlement, as opposed to more needless and costly litigation, 
is in the best interest of, and will benefit, the consumers, the 
industry and the American economy. Furthermore, I urge you to get on 
with the process at hand by upholding this agreement, so that 
Microsoft can prudently devote its invaluable resources to continued 
innovation rather than further protracted litigation. I will 
anxiously await your decision. I have the utmost confidence that you 
will make the only decision that is in the best interest of everyone 
concerned.
    Sincerely,
    Wilbur Goodwin (Retired)
    Columbia, SC

TC-00008835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:30am
Subject: court settlement
    the settlement reducing the amount of liability in the court of 
appeals ruling is reasonable to all parties involved including 
Microsoft and the American economy. please stop special interests 
from derailing this settlement. thank you for your attention,
    Sincerely
    Chloe Murdock



MTC-00008836

From: tom sheller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:33am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs: I am communicating to support the current proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, I firmly believe that the evidence 
supports the freedom of enterprise, and I firmly believe that no 
good would come from any sanctions on the part of Microsoft the 
concessions that they have agreed too are fair and beneficial to the 
general populace. Please do not allow special interest groups to 
degrade the just decision that has already been proposed by the 
dept. of justice.
    Thank you,
    Tom Sheller



MTC-00008837

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:46am

[[Page 25078]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Done, mailed 1/5/02.
    Dave Bosworth



MTC-00008838

From: mardi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    mb (765)973-8376Let the settlement go forward so we all can move 
on with our work and the fine minds can be creative instead of 
wasting time on this matter.



MTC-00008839

From: Thayne Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:03am
Subject: For Microsoft
    I posted this in the Apple Discussion forum after another user 
post a link to this e-mail address urging everyone to write you 
against Microsoft: I think the one Jaun posted was a waste of time. 
How is hurting MS going to help me? I'm against this whole going 
after MS on principle. It's just wrong. Who's next? Apple? Sun? Last 
time I checked Sun OS only runs on Sun hardware, sure they put 
Netscape on it but who cares? What have they done that is so 
wrong???? Bundle their software on their OS? Big deal. I never 
wanted Netscape anyway and if I did I could easily download and 
install it.
    Let it be decided by the consumer. If you don't like it don't 
buy it. We're proof they don't have a monopoly on the market, aren't 
we? This is no place for the government, they need to be concerned 
about protecting us from criminals and terrorists, not Bill Gates!!!
    Thayne Erickson
    Mac User



MTC-00008840

From: modulan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please close this case as fast as possible since: There are 
zillions of real problems confronting our country which demand 
better use of taxpayer bucks-- and believe me I am paying a bunch--
hopefully not squandered on a showcase for high profile lawyers.
    Regarding legal rationale, I excerpt from the published text:
    Precedent requires that: the balancing of competing social and 
political interests affected by a proposed antitrust consent decree 
must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion of the 
Attorney General. The court's role in protecting the public interest 
is one of insuring that the government has not breached its duty to 
the public in consenting to the decree. The court is required to 
determine not whether a particular decree is the one that will best 
serve society, but whether the settlement is ``within the reaches of 
the public interest.''
    I think enough time has passed for the DOJ to conclude the case. 
One would have to be an imbecile to believe that Microsoft's 
competitors haven't pushed the case for their stockholders not the 
public's benefit--the whole case is leaving a bad taste for the 
fairness of the American legal system. Quite simply, how much of the 
Microsoft cash can I get by gambling with lawyers in court.
    As for Microsoft's mistakes, the proposed settlement gives a lot 
more than anyone would have envisioned would really arise based on 
the original complaints.
    Folks, the DOJ and its facilities should not be a set for this 
expensive soap opera--for heaven's sake, someone--just someone just 
pound down the gavel and stop the legal opera of the century.
    On the humorous side, if you folks can't close it out, just send 
the case to Judge Judy!
    John D O'Meara Sr.



MTC-00008841

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found guilty of using illegal tactics to 
maintain a monopoly. This is a very serious offense, especially when 
put into the context of intentionally violating not its first, but 
its second consent decree. Further evidence that they have not and 
will not reform their behavior is the fact that they not once, but 
twice presented fraudulent testimony in Federal Court.
    The citizens of the US (and the world) deserve protection from 
further illegal Microsoft activities. I do not believe the current 
settlement is sufficient deterrence. I propose:
    That Microsoft be REQUIRED to disseminate 95% of its current 
cash reserves to its stock holders.
    This reserve is estimated to be in excess of $20 Billion. There 
are approximately 1 Billion shares, so this is $20/share. No 
stockholder is harmed by this; it may, in fact, stimulate the 
economy which would be useful at this time.
    This will leave Microsoft with no debt and $1 Billion in cash 
reserves. Certainly this is still a strong financial position for 
any company. The effect with regard to Microsoft tactics will be to 
reduce (but not eliminate) the ability of Microsoft to purchase (or 
threaten to purchase) companies that are competing against it. This 
Microsoft method has been well documented in the various journal and 
newspapers in the technology field.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008842

From: Frank Disparted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:48am
Subject: MS SETTLEMENT
    Microsoft is a great company and should be left alone, so it can 
direct its energies to making new and better products. I think the 
issue with Microsoft is like shooting your self in the foot. This is 
one company that has brought prosperity to our country. As a user of 
MS products, they are great, work well, and are dependable. That's 
more than I can say of our government.



MTC-00008843

From: Stephen Jacob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Greetings!
    Please settle this now!
    We, the people want to go on without more litigation, lawyers 
fees and constraints!
    Our economy has taken enough of a beating and Microsoft has been 
a whipping post! Let's drop it and move on, please! Thanks for your 
time and interest.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen
    Stephen Jacob
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00008844

From: Maya Opavska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I'm a long-time computer user and a concerned citizen writing to 
express my concern over the prolonged case against Microsoft. The 
comprehensive agreement that the federal government and the nine 
states reached with Microsoft is reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. This settlement is good for consumers, it's good for the 
industry, and it's good for the American economy. Please add my 
voice to the choir of people asking to finally put an end to this 
matter in the interest of all of us!
    Sincerely,
    Maya Opavska ([email protected])



MTC-00008845

From: SAMUEL MEDRANO
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/5/02  2:12am
    Persuant to the Tunney Act the following is my opinion as a 
concerned member of the public in reference to United States vs. 
Microsoft and its proposed settlement. This lawsuit should never 
have seen the light of day nor given the attention it had received. 
It's just consideration should have been as a public example of 
nuisance lawsuits brought about by inefficient and unworthy, but 
powerful economic interests as well as sanctimonious politicians 
seeking greater political power.
    Serious study of economics would have revealed that true 
monopolies exist only where the intruments of political power are 
used to insulate and protect an area of industry from the brutal and 
fickle forces of a free market whose only sovereign is the consuming 
public. A clear example of a true and lasting is the first class 
delivery monopoly granted to the US Postal Service. (Mises and 
Rothbard)
    Microsoft holds a majority of the market share of operating 
systems not by state edict but by that brutal and fickle sovereign's 
choice know as the public. Politicians love speaking out against 
business ``monoplies'' but never bring to the discussion the state's 
monopolies or their personal monopoly in their respective office. 
They see it as a sign of praise and ``a mandate'' whenever they 
manage to gather more than a majority in election polls or public 
opinion polls.
    By including the Internet Explorer with new PCs Microsoft was 
employing a legitimate business decision calculation by offering 
more and more for its consumers. Microsoft is as eager to capture a 
majority

[[Page 25079]]

marketshare for internet browers as its competitors. That is the 
nature of the free market and the American way. May the fair winner 
in this never ending struggle be praised. We the sovereign will 
determine how long we will let this or that supplier will be a 
majority marketshare winner.
    It is unfortunate that our current political and legal system 
has brought this justly favored company to the point that it has and 
in the process interfered with the sovereign's task of making 
rational economic calculations as to the company that serves us 
better with the most desirable products and services.
    While unnecessary it is better for the public's interest that 
the current lawsuit be brought to a rapid settlement as has been 
proposed rather than follow the ludicrous and unjust actions sought 
by the competing and powerful politicoeconomic interests that seek 
to so call protect us from ourselves or those that serve us by our 
own encouragement.
    Respectfully,
    Samuel Medrano. MD
    Bibliography:
    Mises, Ludwig von--Human Action 1949
    Rothbard, Murray N.--Man, Economy and the State
    For more on economics in general the Ludwig von Mises 
Institution is literally the best place on earth to begin and 
maintain a serious study on the subject.



MTC-00008846

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for big government--at the federal level or the state 
level--to get out of the business of holding back the Microsoft 
Corporation from providing competitive products at an attractive 
pricing level.
    Hence, I request the settlement under review be approved and all 
legation of any sort be stopped.
    William F Stevens
    [email protected]



MTC-00008847

From: Joel Bramlitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'd like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit. I am a citizen who makes his living by supporting Microsoft 
products. I was very alarmed when I first heard about this lawsuit, 
because I feared it could possibly affect my livelihood. I have 
followed it very closely, and was very relieved when I heard a 
settlement had finally been reached. Now, I am concerned again. The 
nine states that did not agree with the settlement are jeopardizing 
the whole deal for what appear to be less than honorable reasons.
    The way I understand it, the heart of the antitrust laws are 
intended to protect the consumer. From what I've read and heard, 
Microsoft's competitors seem to be the true beneficiaries of the 
proposed ``alternate settlement''. Is it a coincidence that they are 
mostly headquartered in the holdout states? I think not. To me this 
clearly political maneuvering on the part of the aforementioned 
competitors. They are angry at Microsoft, and instead of creating 
superior products to compete in the marketplace, they want to 
cripple Microsoft in the courts. The way I see it, if the nine other 
states and especially the U.S. Government agree on a remedy, that's 
what it should be. The holdout states obviously have agendas that 
have nothing to do with what's best for the consumer.
    I, along with everyone I talk to feel this has gone on long 
enough. Our country is in a very different type of crisis right now. 
One that vastly overshadows this particular case. I hope the court 
will consider this, and put an end to the vengeful tactics of 
Microsoft's competitors. We cannot continue to punish success, and 
reward mediocrity.
    Thank you for your time.
    Joel Stephen Bramlitt



MTC-00008848

From: K Dyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    My government spent more money prosecuting Microsoft during the 
Clinton presidency than it spent on anti-terror programs. It spent 
more on prosecuting Microsoft than it spent equipping our military 
to conduct a two theater operation. It spent more prosecuting 
Microsoft than it did on increased research for an AIDS solution.
    My counsel to you is simple: STOP IT! I'm mad at you and I vote. 
And I'll vote against anyone who does not support and vote for an 
immediate end and settlement to this foolishness.
    Don't forget about me, it's my money that pays the bills and I'm 
not going to forget about you.
    William K. Dyer
    [email protected]



MTC-00008849

From: John Preston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:23am
Subject: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS settlement
    I feel that the government should settle in favor of Microsoft. 
Actually I think the matter should have never come to court. All 
this crap about the browser being packaged with the OS is nonsense. 
I use Windows 98 on my home computer and have both Internet Explorer 
and NetScape on the same computer.
    I can choose to use either one. Its up to me. I have said this 
before. Try to buy a new car from any car dealer with an engine or 
other parts from a different dealer and see what you get. Its going 
to be a big nothing that's what. Why? Because business is not done 
that way. Try to buy a new car without an engine.
    They will probably sell it to you but guess what? It will cost a 
lot more money because of all the special handling that will be 
required to get it to you.
    This whole thing is just the result of some people who weren't 
in the right place at the right time or didn't make the right 
decision.
    Throw it out of court. Stop wasting my tax dollars on it and 
lets get on with life.
    John Preston



MTC-00008850

From: Alan Feldman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let this lawsuit go! Let the settlement stand. It is a tough 
settlement, but fair, and Microsoft is already implementing parts of 
it.
    I, as a consumer and industry partner (software developer for a 
3rd party), was very upset to see this lawsuit at all. Right from 
the get-go it only seemed to help competitors not consumers. 
Microsoft has continually improved their software and kept prices 
fair. They have created an industry that I am proud to be a part of. 
Leave Microsoft alone!
    With this settlement Microsoft is already giving in to things 
they would've never agreed to (and shouldn't), but they have agreed, 
and are implementing it. And Microsoft's competitor's should be 
happy about that.
    But from now on they should compete in the MARKET PLACE not the 
courts. And let the CONSUMER decide what is best. They are not so 
stupid as this lawsuit has made them out to be... they can spot good 
software when they see it.
    Thank you.
    Alan Feldman
    753 Bellows Way, Apt.# 204
    Newport News, VA 23602
    757-833-3470



MTC-00008851

From: Leon van Schie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am shocked by the recent news regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. Instead of punishing Microsoft for their monopoly 
strategy you are giving them a green light to basically kick Apple 
Computer out of the education market by donating an astronomical 
amount of money in Microsoft products to this industry, thus giving 
Microsoft a go ahead to continue to do business as usual. I1m sorry 
but this goes beyond my comprehension. You are playing Microsoft1s 
cards by making them an offer like this.
    To my humble opinion they should be punished not by putting more 
of their product into the market, especially such a sensitive market 
like education, but by giving them a punishment that1s appropriate. 
If you want Microsoft to donate zillions of dollars, let them do 
that to a neutral institution like food for 3rd world countries or 
something in that order.
    What impression do you give Microsoft (and others like them) 
here? If you monopolize the market by unfair means of business we 
will reward you by allowing you to do more business and even kill 
some competition on the way?! By putting more Microsoft products out 
there you are giving

[[Page 25080]]

companies like Apple Computer absolutely no chance what so ever to 
sell their product in the education industry, hence they start to 
monopolize that industry as well.
    A concerned Dutch citizen.
    With kind regards,
    Leon van Schie.
    Bervoetsbos 189
    2134 PP Hoofddorp
    The Netherlands



MTC-00008852

From: Jay Greenfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The states contesting the settlement are working at the behest 
of AOL, Oracle and Sun. They want to constrain Microsoft not because 
it will help the consumer but because it will help their bottom 
lines.
    Microsoft has not always been an engine of innovation. And its 
business practices have been too aggressive. Nevertheless, today 
Microsoft with its .NET initiative and the uses it is putting XML to 
in the service of this initiative has become a real engine of 
innovation driving Oracle towards XML, Sun into an embrace of web 
services and making AOL uneasy. This is a good competitive 
situation. Weakening Microsoft significantly would strengthen AOL. 
AOL is not an engine of innovation. Imagine no Microsoft and just an 
alliance between Sun, Oracle and AOL. One doesn't have to be a 
genius to put together a website using Visual Basic and a Windows 
2000 Server. Java programming and Oracle administration are much 
more demanding and expensive.
    We need a strong Microsoft to compete with the AOL/Oracle/Sun 
alliance.



MTC-00008853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets move on and financially rape some other evil corporation 
with deep pockets. What shows the attackers of Microsoft for what 
they are, despicable whoring thieves, when Microsoft said that they 
would in essence, give up their code ( the original request) by 
providing FREE software/computers to schools,it still was not 
enough--nothing will ever be enough. Have some political balls, now 
that that embarrassment--Reno is gone, and move and do something 
important for once in a decade.
    Yours truly,
    Russell Kestler



MTC-00008854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THIS CASE NEEDS TO BE SETTLED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER LITIGATION. I 
HAVE TALKED WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE 
INDUVIDUAL THAT BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE CONTINUED. WE 
BELIEVE THAT A SETTLEMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE CONSUMERS. I AM 
INVOLVED IN COMPUTERS, I WANT TO SEE THIS CASE SETTLED ASAP. WE ARE 
INVLOVED IN SOME VERY DIFFICULT TIMES AT THIS DATE AND WE DON'T NEED 
TO FURTHER DESTROY OUR ECONOMY BY FURTHER CONTINUING THIS CASE.
    I HOPE THAT SOMEONE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS E-MAIL.
    LARRY L. BRITTAIN, CPA,CFP,CLU,ChFC,CCIM



MTC-00008855

From: Jeff Oberst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Dept. of Justice,
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corp. is fair for 
customers of Microsoft, its competitors and the general public. I 
believe this case has dragged on too long it should be promptly 
brought to a close.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Oberst



MTC-00008856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:15am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I want to go on record as one who believes that settlement of 
the Microsoft case is paramount to healing much of the economic 
trevails that we face as a nation and indeed, the world. No more 
litigation, please, to serve the selfish interests of competitors 
and stifle innovation within the industry. This freedom is still 
what makes America a great and shining beacon to the rest of the 
world.
    This entire trumped up charade should have never happened in the 
first place. Now that we are back to reality with the current 
administration, let us not belabor a moot point. Let us move forward 
and support a thriving desire to innovate, putting people to work, 
assisting the public interest in attaining useful tools for the tech 
world that moves us forward. Let go of Microsoft and stop the 
strangulation! Now!



MTC-00008857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough money and time has been spent on this. The government 
needs to conclude this case with the settlement agreed upon by both 
parties. Further prolonging this case is not in the best interests 
of the consumer. Finish it...



MTC-00008858

From: Bill Fulmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is fair and equitable for all 
concerned.



MTC-00008859

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    Not all Americans regard Microsoft as an ``evil empire.'' Many 
citizens appreciate the initiative, brilliance and hard work of Mr. 
Gates and company. Further, they do not regard Microsoft as a 
criminal enterprise, but rather as a heroic one. It is not my 
intention to change your mind on the specific charges you have 
leveled at Microsoft, although it would be great if you did 
reconsider. Anti-trust law is notoriously vague and non-objective. 
My intention is to ask you, please, as a citizen, voter and tax 
payer to leave the case as is, and to not support any worse 
sanctions against this company. Further, if there is any opportunity 
to reduce current sanctions or proposed sanctions against Microsoft, 
I urge you to take these opportunities. In essence, I believe 
Microsoft has been punished enough. Thank you for the opportunity to 
comment.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph McHugh
    Malden, Massachusetts



MTC-00008860

From: John Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    John Sweeney
    Lansdale PA



MTC-00008861

From: FRED SIMMONS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT HAS DONE MORE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY AND OUR 
ECONOMY THAN ANY OTHER. THEY ARE AN INDUSTRY LEADER AND HAVE CREATED 
MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE PEOPLE THAN MANY BEFORE THEM. IT AMAZES ME 
THAT MY GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN ISSUE WITH MICROSOFT. WHO IS REALLY 
BENEFITING FROM CONTINUED LITIGATION? MAYBE IT IS TIME FOR 
INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF TO BEGIN ASKING WHO AND WHY? I HAVE SENT 
COMMUNICATIONS TO MY STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS. I WILL 
EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO JUDGE THEIR ACTIONS COME NEXT ELECTION DAY!
    IT IS TIME TO STOP THIS LITIGATION. I REQUEST MY VOICE BE 
COUNTED IN F AVOR OF SETTLEMENT. NOW!
    REGARDS,
    FRED SIMMONS
    293 WILSON BUTTE ROAD
    GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59405



MTC-00008862

From: E.L. Pietrowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:18am
Subject: Mircosoft Settlement
    As the usual cry by the Clinton gang was ``s Time to move on'' 
that time has been reached in the Mircosoft case.
    No one will become a winner if this settlement continues to drag 
on and on. As I see the settlement before the court neither side is 
really happy with the settlement. To me that indicates the 
settlement is as fair as it will get. It is time to turn our efforts 
to something constructive and stop wasting tax

[[Page 25081]]

payer money on something that does not have a right answer.
    E.L. Pietrowski



MTC-00008863

From: Herb Cilley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:24am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear People,
    since 1933 I have been in business, one way or another. I 
believe Microsoft has developed the system of E-mail and should be 
allowed to profit from it.... It is my hope that You will rule in 
favor of them, for what it is worth. Drug companies and others 
patent their discoveries or inventions, and profit from it for a 
period of time. Thanks for reading this.
    Herbert L. Cilley
    60 Middle Road--#319-B
    Dover, NH 03820-4146
    [email protected]
    (603) 749-5904



MTC-00008864

From: Brett McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01  10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement.
    Brett McDonald
    38602 Lancaster Drive
    Farmington Hills, MI 48331
    Owner
    BFM Software



MTC-00008865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to add my voice to the comments the Court may consider in 
reviewing the proposed settlement between the Justice Department and 
several of the State plaintiffs and Microsoft. First, it should be 
clear that consumers have overwhelmingly selected Microsoft products 
over others. It is disdainful of the public to assume that this 
preference is not knowing or intended. Second, it should be equally 
clear from the public whining that many of Microsoft's competitors 
(and their are many, a testiment to the strong competitive 
environment in this industry), that this litigation has been used as 
a substitute for competition by the providers of less desirable 
products (the many published interviews with Scott McNealy of Sun 
Microsystems, for example, are a testiment to this, as is the 
relative performance of the competotors in the stock market). Third, 
it is transparent that the unreasonable and intransigent position 
taken by the nonsettling parties, Connecticut Attorney General 
Blumenthal being a prime example, as reported in the national press 
in various out of court statements by Mr. Blumenthal and others, is 
primarily motivated by politics, not economics or law. This case has 
been used to bash the success and innovation of Microsoft (a fat 
target because of its superiority) by those seeking a populist 
platform for their political ambitions. I urge the Court not to 
allow those whose motives have nothing to do with fair and open 
competition to hold back American technological competitiveness in 
the world market (note that when the shoe is on the other foot, as 
in the case of opponent America Online, no interference with its own 
instant messaging system is allowed).
    The notion of natural monoploy due to superior insight and 
innovation should not be frustrated by ``wannabees'' who are merely 
jealous of Microsoft's success or by politicians playing the 
fundraising and campaign rhetoritc games--Mr. Blumenthal can set 
national antitrust policy if he is ever the Attorney General of the 
United States (or President). This case has done its public service 
in reaching a just and fair settlement which the Justice Department 
and a significant portion of the complaining States have freely 
negotiated for the benefit of the consuming public. It is time to 
get on with the next generation of technology and leave this case 
for the historical landmark it is. There can be no doubt that by the 
time the trial court has finished with this matter the entire 
context of the technology which it addresses will have changed 
without regard to legal principles as is only natural, for, to quote 
Abraham Lincoln, ``. . . we have added the fuel of interest to the 
fire of genius.'' I urge the Court to sustain the settlement, as 
proposed.
    Steven A. Diaz,
    3022 Fox Den Lane,
    Oakton, VA 22124.



MTC-00008866

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think settlement still too hard on Microsoft! Government 
should get off the backs of companies that get a lions share of the 
market because they are good at what they do--go after the real law 
breakers!



MTC-00008867

From: Delpha Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:50am
Subject: Microsoft
    313 N Mississippi Street
    Blue Grass, IA 52726-9731
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you to express my feelings on the Microsoft 
settlement issue. I believe the settlement that was reached with 
Microsoft is thorough and sufficient. Please continue to support it.
    I am a strong supporter of Microsoft, and I think that it has 
done quite a bit to help our economy. I want this case to be settled 
so that the people at the company may continue going on about their 
business and inventing superior products that will continue to 
improve the industry. My hope is that once this case is over the 
benefits that Microsoft, its competitors, and consumers will see 
will help improve our economy in these hard times. After all, 
Microsoft has bent over backwards to accommodate the millions of 
fans of Netscape, AOL, and other software-related companies, 
including non-retaliatory agreements against software companies that 
develop products that compete with Microsoft.
    This settlement is a step in the right direction. Thank you for 
settling with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Delpha Wagner



MTC-00008868

From: Leslie Duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:52am
Subject: settlement
    1414 Arlene Street,
    Redlands ,CA92374.
    January 5, 2002,
    Dear Department of Justice, Senate, Congress and The States of 
Our Union,
    This letter confirms my total agreement to settle the lawsuits 
against Microsoft. As a U.S Citizen and consumer who regularly 
purchases numerous Microsoft products, I can attest that Microsoft 
has dealt fairly with me by their pricing and business practices. I 
have never been forced to purchase their products through any kind 
of illegal business practices. As a result I find that any and all 
accusations made against this company on my behalf as a consumer 
very frivolous and false. Therefore I humbly request that the 
Justice Department and the United States Senate, Congress and the 
States of our union, proceed with all speed in the interest of our 
economy and Constitution to settle any and all lawsuits that arise 
from the alleged false accusations.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie A.I. Duncan



MTC-00008869

From: PHIL BASHAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is past time to end the pursuit of Microsoft. A settlement 
must be reached quickly. This was a lawsuit that never should have 
happened. Microsoft has served its customers well and in the process 
has brought computer use technology to the present high state. I for 
one have no inclination to use other products and find the software 
offered by Microsoft to fit my needs exactly.
    Thank you,
    Phil Basham
    9787 Cypress Point Cir
    Lone Tree, CO 80124-3105
    303 799-1074
    303 799-0613 data
    303 885-9809 cell
    [email protected]



MTC-00008870

From: Bettyhu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We were so pleased when the first settlement was made. It is 
hard to imagine how the States could have been hurt. It seems to us 
they are just being greedy.

[[Page 25082]]

    Our country needs Microsoft to be able to continue to improve 
its products. Please reject the States suits.



MTC-00008871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement was fair, and it's time to leave them 
alone.My tax dollars can be spent on something better, like 
investigating Janet Reno. She is a crook, and has got away with a 
lot. She spent eight years covering up for Bill Clinton.I waited 
eight years for justice and i don't see it yet.Do you ever plan on 
looking into her obstruction of the truth.
    Wayne
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008872

From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please recognize that it is everyone's best interest to get this 
settled now. let's do it !!



MTC-00008873

From: Ralph Rebandt Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:29am
Subject: SETTLE QUICKLY
    The longer it takes to settle this--it will continue to hurt the 
economy. Microsoft is in the right.
    Ralph Rebandt



MTC-00008874

From: Marion Behlert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wind up the Microsoft case! The lawyers are the only ones 
winning. Get it finished! If Ashcroft has something to do w/it, I'm 
sure it will be fair.
    Marion Behlert
    5926 Price Rd.
    Milford, OH 45150



MTC-00008875

From: Jiri Bures
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned consumer and citizen I overwhelmingly agree that 
a settlement in the Microsoft case is good and fair to all parties 
involved including the industry and American economy.
    From: George Bures, [email protected]



MTC-00008876

From: Jay Burch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the DOJ has not represented the interests of the 
American consumer in the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft. Therefore, any 
agreement that Microsoft finds acceptable is fine with me. The 
motivation of the DOJ is what needs to be questioned here; not the 
practices of Microsoft.
    Jay Burch



MTC-00008877

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs,
    As a concerned citizen I stronly beleive this case has dragged 
on long enough and should be settled immediately. The settlement 
accepted by other States is just and fair and should be acceptable 
to all! Time to stop messing around and move on!!!!
    Leo and Joan LaChance



MTC-00008878

From: Charlotte Venner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This is a good settlement. It is not in the public interest to 
deay this any further. We need certainty in the marketplace. Also, I 
believe tat technolgy has moved beyond the issues in the case. It 
needs to be closed.
    Thank you, Charlotte Venner
    Charlotte M. Venner, Esq.
    VENNERADR
    MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
    One Sansome St., 20th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Phone: (415) 733-7858
    Fax: (415) 388-1036
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Web Site: www.venneradr.com



MTC-00008879

From: Allen L Plitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs, Please put a quick end to this case. I think a lot of 
people are sick and tired of hearing the competitors of Microsoft 
dictate to our government what to do to hurt this corporation just 
so they may more quickly gain more of the pie. If they cannot beat 
Microsoft with a better product, then they should not be allowed to 
beat Microsoft(period). How next will it be possible to get 
subsidization from our government.



MTC-00008880

From: Dan Rohr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:26pm
Subject: Mirosoft Settlement
    Hello Department of Justice,
    It is my understanding that the DoJ is accepting public comment 
on the case against Micro-Soft. I have, for years, been annoyed 
about the injustice that MS has had to bear:
    * They create products that have been used by the public and 
government to attack them--people use Word to write documents used 
in court to prosecute MS, people use MSs versions of email and 
Internet Explorer to send messages promoting the destruction of MS; 
Im sure you can think of more examples.
    * They are largely instrumental in the proliferation of cheaper 
and cheaper, yet more powerful home/business computers. And yet, 
they are attacked for harming the public.
    As the fictional Howard Roark pointed out in his defense, in Ayn 
Rands The Fountain Head, long ago, someone discovered fire, and he 
was probably burned at the steak by his contemporaries that 
benefited from that very discovery. We havent come very far, 
sacrificing great men for the satisfaction of the mob; or have we?
    The corrupt Clinton administration devoted, and diverted, great 
resources toward the torture and destruction of the popular boogie-
man, Bill Gates, while ignoring the paramount responsibility of 
defending the country from violent attack. I have been encouraged by 
the Bush administrations apparent change in course against MS. I 
urge you to open the jaws and let them free. The Wests greatest 
country, with its technology and her heroes that create it, have 
enough enemies (foreign and internal) without the DoJ going after it 
too.
    Best regards,
    Dan Rohr
    2304 Gross Point Lane
    Wildwood, MO 63011



MTC-00008881

From: Jim Engler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:27pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    I wanted to take a moment to tell you that as a 3 year employee 
of Microsoft's Federal division and 24 year officer and tactical jet 
pilot in the United States Navy, that I understand integrity very 
well, and have seen Microsoft always act with integrity and always 
go well beyond what's expected of a company always trying to do the 
right thing for it's customers.
    Please seriously consider ending this political abuse of 
arguably one of the most important companies in the United States. 
Microsoft can significantly help lead this country out of recession 
if it's given the chance. Thank you! Jim
    James Engler
    Federal Defense Agencies Manager (DOD/USAF)
    Wk: (980) 776-9809
    Cell: (704) 277-5758
    ``You have not only the right to be an individual, you have an 
obligation to be one''--Eleanor Roosevelt
    CC:Jim Engler



MTC-00008882

From: Lawrence MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Litagation
    It is time to settle this case on a federal & statewide 
basis.The proposed settlement seems fair & should be implemented.
    The nation has more important things to do than to continue this 
contentious litigation.
    Lawrence E. MacDonald
    Crossville,TN.



MTC-00008883

From: Jim Oliver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am concerned about the lengthy court battles of the government 
vs. Microsoft. I

[[Page 25083]]

believe it is in the best interest of the economy and the future of 
technology that this be settled immediately.
    Our economy is still very fragile and we need a boost. An 
immediate settlement of the Microsoft case would be that boost. 
Microsoft, as a company, has done more for technology in the last 15 
years than any other company. Let's put the company back to work, 
take this distraction away from them, and see what they can do for 
us over the next 15 years. Thank you for your attention.
    Jim Oliver
    Colby, KS



MTC-00008884

From: William Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Many thanks for the fair Microsoft settlement. It is good to 
have closure so that the country can go forward to solve the present 
economic downturn without the distraction of the politics associated 
with the Microsoft settlement. Hopefully the interests who wish to 
keep this settlement open interminably will be tharwted and the 
country move ahead economically.
    Yours sincerely,
    William B. Bennett



MTC-00008885

From: Don Rahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please complete this settlement as outlined in the present 
proposal. I believe it is time to get on with business. It seems to 
me that Microsoft is a vital part of our national economy and should 
continue to add it's part to our national product totals. Let's wind 
up the settlement and stop the sidetracking of Government resources 
at Justice so they can concentrate on more important activities.
    Sincerely,
    Don Rahl
    107 Blencowe Court
    Folsom CA 95630



MTC-00008886

From: Mike Shreve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed with the settlement of the Microsoft case. 
Despite the hype, ALL software prices have decreased where Microsoft 
products are offered.
    As far as being a monopoly, Apple, Sun, and Oracle have 
monopolies in their fields, AND charge higher prices.
    Microsofts only real impropriety has been controling 
manufacturer and distributor sales of their product. They've agreed 
to stop doing that. END OF STORY.
    Mike Shreve
    727-539-6498



MTC-00008887

From: John H. Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I am writing in support of the Microsoft Settlement agreement 
the Federal Government and nine states have endorsed. I believe this 
settlement is in the public interest. It is time to put this 
litigation to rest and move on. It is certainly important for 
technology companies to have the freedom to inovate.
    Thank you.
    John H. Gardner
    560 S. Belvedere Blvd.
    Memphis, TN 38104



MTC-00008888

From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:16pm
Subject: e-atm integer mint budget case 01245
    the money is mine not microsoft the worlds and i have the 
freedom of my business and govt to by the banking titles and 
copyright title to do such the monetary decree and desision i want 
is that it is mine for the first offer and the year 2002.
    signed RICHARD JOHN FRANK AND I HAVE NOT POBOX AND NO ADDRESS 
EXCEPT THE GENERAL DELIVERY OLYMPIA WA 98501 RESPOND IF NECESSARY
    THANK YOU ..



MTC-00008889

From: sparky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir;
    Please stop the ongoing litigation and bring closure for the 
sake of our public and country.
    I personally admire the direction of Microsoft and it's 
innovations which enhances our growth in the technology and software 
leadership. Our country needs to unite in these times to move ahead 
and continue to show the world of our advancement to society as a 
whole.
    Sam Green
    West Bloomfield, Mi



MTC-00008890

From: AANDJMARVAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I have always felt that I had the freedom to 
choose whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted it, and, to a certain 
extent, however I wanted it. I strongly believe that Microsoft is a 
victim of it's own success. Some people, the majority of them being 
Microsoft's competitor's, complain that Microsoft's success was a 
result of foul play. That is totally untrue. Microsoft is a leader 
in it's field because of a vision, hard work to implement the 
vision, and innovation to remain a competitive force.
    These are not acts of crime or foul play, these are acts of the 
American dream. Let's not penalize successful, hard working people, 
let us simply allow them to thrive. Government intervention, in 
order to level the playing field, has almost always historically 
resulted in hurting the people the government was trying to protect, 
the consumer. Do we so quickly forget how Microsoft has contributed 
to the explosion of the computer industry, and do we also forget how 
many jobs they have created not only at Microsoft but also at a 
plethora of other companies that started up as a result of their 
success? This whole case is a big let down and a real slap in the 
face to Microsoft and aspiring Americans who want to live out the 
American dream to it's full potential. Don't forget, Microsoft isn't 
just Bill Gates, it's a corporation with many employees and many 
business owners in the form of shareholders. Please be very careful 
and very wise in considering this settlement. People are being hurt 
because this case is costing a great deal of money in tax revenue 
and in company revenue. Who is really winning here if tax paying 
consumers are dumping money into this case over many years? The 
obvious answer is that no one is. All of us are losing money in one 
form or another. Please resolve this matter as soon as possible so 
everyone can get on with business and put this senseless debate 
behind us. I appreciate your attention to my concerns.
    Have a great new year.
    Anthony F. Marvan



MTC-00008891

From: Kenneth Hopping
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:33pm
Subject: Comment on Proposed Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not impose any substantive penalty 
on Microsoft for its past monopolistic behavior. It also does not 
implement any real corrective actions other than promises by 
Microsoft to be less evil in the future. The entire package has the 
appearance of a political buyout with DoJ becoming little more than 
employees of Microsoft. I urge the rejection of this travesty of 
justice. The public is in no way served by the anemic measures 
proposed and in fact will be irreparably harmed by what is, in 
effect, a government certification of Microsoft as a legal monopoly.
    Kenneth Hopping
    4117 145th Ave. NE
    Bellevue, WA. 98007



MTC-00008892

From: Marvin Francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:33pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that Microsoft has been harrassed enough. For the good 
of the economy, please let the present settlement stand. Any further 
litigation will only hurt the company and have an adverse effect on 
the hopefully recovering economy.
    Sincerely
    Marvin H. Francis.



MTC-00008893

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe it is about time that this case is finaly put to rest. 
The public interest is being served with the appelate courts 
decision.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter.
    Sincerly,
    John Intagliata

[[Page 25084]]



MTC-00008894

From: Jean Valleroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do delay this settlement. Everyone has worked very hard 
and diligently for a long time. There will never be a time when 
everyone is content. The DOJ can use its time and energy more 
effectively for other concerns of Americans. Get on with it!



MTC-00008895

From: Matthias Schonder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
    Ladies and Gentlemen, some friends informed me, that you are 
``listening to the voices of non-Microsoft users'' which makes me 
very happy as it shows that you really care about users.
    My friends showed me a sample of a good writting to you and I 
think it is so good that I just copied and pasted it. This is not 
because I'm lazy or something it is very close to my statement and 
as my english is poor it think this is the best way.
    But I also want you to know, that Microsoft ``one-OS-boot''-
license is one of the factors why Be, Inc. failed and is now 
history.
    Thank you very much for taking time reading this.
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: MS Office needs 
to be opened, so that developers interested in porting it or 
understanding the document formats can do so either in form of a 
source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone 
libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can read and 
write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows users.
    The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    BeHappy
    Matthias ``LoCal'' Schonder
    BeDev#: E-18032
    http://www.schonder.com/matthias.schonder



MTC-00008896

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here's another copy of a recent internal e-mail, Good OP 
Monopolistic/Anti-Trust Violating Microsoft, sent out to it's people 
urging them to, again, use whatever means they can think of to 
``Crush'' the competition.
    The U.S. Government has the ``Obligation'' to properly punish 
this company because of it's court conviction on ``Anti-Trust'' 
violations. Don't let these people off! They've already driven many 
companies with great products and ideas out of business. They've 
already stolen many technologies invented by other companies, 
changed them to be ``Proprietary'' to Microsoft, and marketed them 
as their own ideas to further their economic/technological 
stranglehold on the world.
    Prosecute them, don't strike deals!
From: Brian Valentine
Sent: Wed 12/26/2001 7:14 PM
To: WW Sales, Marketing & Services Group
Subject: Me again--Linux updates
    Microsoft Confidential--Do not print, copy or forward this email 
and do not share this email with anyone outside the company. For 
internal use only!
    Now that the whole world knows we are taking Linux seriously 
based on the leak of my last email... Wait--stop there -since when 
did they think we weren't taking them serious?!? Did they think we 
are not going to build the best products possible? Did they think we 
were going to just be fat, dumb and happy and not continue to win 
business? Did they think we were going to forget about taking care 
of our customers??? NO!
    Who do they think we are? We have the best d*mn sales force in 
the world backed by the best engineers in the world--of course we 
will take any non-Windows OS serious. The thing about the leak that 
made me mad was not that we would legitimize Linux, etc. it's good 
in some places, we are better, and it's not very good in other 
places and we are much better, but they are a competitor and we will 
compete. What made me mad was that my friends--some of you and some 
of our customer's names where in that email and then available for 
all to see on the web.
    That made me mad. I want you selling and supporting our 
products--not having to take random calls, emails, etc from the 
press and others and I know what out customers share with us is in 
confidence that we will keep it internal. I have no problem any 
random Linux person sending me hate mail, junk mail, adding my email 
address to every list server out there, you name it--that comes with 
the job, but I don't want my friends to have to deal with the same 
junk.
    Ok, Ok, enough of that. On to some new things we are doing for 
you around Linux. Linux is out there in some of your accounts and 
you may not know it. The ground up nature of how Linux is introduced 
into our accounts means that we need to modify our traditional 
approaches of finding out about Linux in our customer base. We have 
to be more hands on and dig deeper in your accounts!
    Many Linux projects in CAS and Depth accounts happen below the 
IT Manager/BDM level. It's crucial that you get out there with your 
TSP/SE/MCS folks and do actual walkthroughs in your accounts. Ask 
open ended questions; find out what they're evaluating for both key 
projects as well as smaller, more tactical projects. Ask about the 
`connector' pieces--you'll potentially find Linux in these areas. 
This is a great way to not only find out about Linux, but also other 
IT projects that may include Novell, Sun, Oracle, and other 
competitors! If you are struggling with how to do this, then do the 
simple exercise of walking through you accounts data centers and 
when you see a Sun or IBM machine, ask what it's used for, if you 
see some strange servers you don't what they are doing--ask what is 
running on them and take notes. I would like to challenge each of 
you to have these conversations with your customer as soon as you 
can. Oh--and you can bet anyplace IBM is talking to your accounts, 
they are saying Linux and switching to higher end non-pc systems. 
With the current economic times we are living in, just about every 
customer is looking into how they can get rid of those over-priced, 
legacy Unix systems and ride the PC economics wave. We need to be 
there when they are making these decisions and prove to them the 
Windows platform is the best platform for them across any aspect of 
their business. I want you to know just how seriously we're taking 
Linux here in Redmond. We're investing major efforts in creating 
easier processes and resources for you.
    I. To start, we have expanded the in-field Linux Competitive 
Champ program and renamed it ``Linux Insiders'' Like the other TSP 
Champs programs, it has been changed to use the new TSP role-based 
database and will be ready to roll out with its new name at the 
Envision event in January. It is up to each regional TSP manager to 
select or assign each member; therefore, anyone wishing to become an 
Insider should see their manager to be signed up. Much like the 
support ``communities'' that define the Linux experience, the FCS 
team will strive to build a community to cooperate in winning 
business against Linux. By building a virtual team of field staff 
and corporate resources, we will enable the field to have one place 
to go for communication and competitive information. The Linux 
Insiders will have access to a centralized web site where personnel 
can request help, route issues, and share best practices that the 
entire field can leverage. This site, a restricted sub-set of the 
http://infoweb/linux site, will be accessible by all ``Insiders,'' 
for items such as SLT reviews, web-casts, notes from conference 
calls and other sensitive information. If you have questions about 
the Insiders program, please email Kelly File of the FCS team at 
mailto: kellyfi.
    II. Second, I'd like to announce the new Linux/UNIX escalation 
process that is being headed up by IMS Enterprise & Partner Group 
VPJ Charles Stevens' organization. Here's how it works: a. First, 
make sure you check out the latest additions to the Web sites: 
http://infoweb/linux and http://infoweb/sundown.
    b. If you can't find what you need there, involve your local 
expert: the district Linux or Sun Insider (TSPs with Linux and/or 
Sun competitive responsibilities). These Insiders have the expertise 
and the resources to help you win. You can find your local Insider 
on the web sites.
    c. If you still need help for Global, Strategic and Major 
accounts, the Linux/Sun Insiders (or your GM) can escalate the issue 
to the new corporate Linux/Unix Escalation Team. Let me emphasize 
that you need to work with your local Insider or your GM because 
they have direct access to this escalation team. The team is 
committed to provide an initial response within one working day. 
These guys have in-depth UNIX industry backgrounds and have been 
winning against UNIX and

[[Page 25085]]

Linux. The product development organization will be working closely 
with this team to make sure you have all the resources you need.
    III. Finally, we're working hard to debunk the myths around 
Linux. We're approaching this in waves.
    a. The first wave will attack the perception that Linux is free. 
To that effect, we'll have an independent analysis commissioned by 
DH Brown looking at a very popular topic these days--server 
consolidation. If you're not seeing this yet, you probably will. IBM 
is proposing to use Mainframes running many virtual instances of 
Linux as a low cost server consolidation scenario for file and 
print, messaging, and database activities. The DH Brown report will 
be customer ready and will help your customer understand just how 
competitive Microsoft is in this arena.
    b. The second wave will be a full blown cost analysis comparison 
case study between Linux and Windows in a variety of usage scenarios 
(web, file and print, etc.) done independently by the analysts for 
us. ETA for this tool is in May and it will be a great tool to help 
you sell the value of Windows solutions over Linux. If you have any 
questions on this study, please email the mailto: ??nxteam alias.
    You can expect us to turn up the volume on winning against 
Linux, as well as IBM. There is some great cross team work between 
PMG, SMG, and CMG marketing groups to ensure we're addressing your 
needs and believe me, that feedback goes directly to me and the 
senior leadership team so we can build better products to help you 
win against Linux!
    Thanks,
    Brian
    Microsoft Confidential--Do not print, copy or forward this email 
and do not share this email with anyone out side the company. For 
internal use only!
    PS: I used to run Exchange--so if you think I am not tracking 
this message, think again. Don't forward it! And if you have forward 
rules that have forwarded this message, then perhaps you should 
think again about forwarding internal email with those rules. I want 
to give you folks all the information I can in a very open way. If 
we continue to have bad apples or careless people out there, I will 
not be able to help you by sending this kind of information!
    ``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 [email protected]>:-)



MTC-00008897

From: Bonnie L. Irwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:05pm
Subject: Opinion on Agreement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft recently reached an 
agreement after a long battle over antitrust practices. This 
agreement was equitable; both sides getting something each wanted. I 
was relieved to see the final chapter of a case that had costs 
millions of dollars and untold hours.
    Now it appears Microsoft will have to share coding information 
with its competitors, and allow companies to promote its 
competitors' products unhindered. It is time to move on. We have 
spent enough time and money on this case. Microsoft is a solid, 
profitable, well-managed company, unlike some airline companies I 
know. As a grateful long-time user of Microsoft products, I find it 
ironic that those who seek to hinder innovation are often those 
folks whose secretaries have to print out their email.
    Why is it that Congress bails out ill-managed companies, but yet 
goes after well-managed companies?
    We need to let the terms of the settlement take hold and allow 
our IT sector to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Irwin
    Bonnie L. Irwin
    IRWIN MANUFACTURING
    266 Highway 128
    Wilson, WI 54027
    phone: (715) 772-3120
    e-mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008898

From: cynthia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO whom it may concern, I sincerly hope the microsoft settlement 
is final and we can get on with business.
    Let innovation continue.
    CYNTHIA THOMAS
    ATLANTA GEORGIA



MTC-00008899

From: Curtis Rey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:16pm
Subject: Competitive Impact Statement
    I am writing to your team to voice some concerns I have about 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft v D.O.J. case. I understand 
that you have, more than likely, recieved countless communiques 
regarding this issue. However, I feel compelled to write to you in 
regards to possible, if not probable, negative outcomes of the 
present state of the proposed settlement.
    Mr. Cringley did an interesting analysis of the MS Settlement 
that I thought of particular interest to the Open Source community, 
and to the Department of Justice' team. But his opinions are not 
pertainant to just the Open Source community, but also relate to 
commercial and public interest regarding the competitive business 
and market arena.
    ``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--a non-
commercial product--and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications. . . 
.Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against not-
for-profits.
    Specifically, the language says that it need not describe nor 
license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols affecting 
authentication and authorization to companies that don't meet 
Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, ...'' So much for SAMBA 
and other Open Source projects that use Microsoft calls'' (as in 
protocal and API 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.'' . . .. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only. ``
    ``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.''
    My concerns, and the conerns of many others are that ``..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.''
    To be specific. Such companies as Sun, Oracle, not to mention 
IBM stand to loss greetly. I would like to remind the ATR-team that 
IBM alone has invested over $1 billion in open source developments 
and products. Granted it is not the function of the D.O.J. to secure 
the profitability of private industry. However, correct me please if 
I am mistaken, but the purpose of the case was to curtail the 
illegitimate business practices of Microsoft and to afford a more 
level and competitive environment for private industry and business. 
Also, the cases underlaying function was to further provide an 
equitable market place for the comsumer.
    I fail to see how it is expected that Microsoft will ``meet 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, ...'' I 
believe a independent standard should be the criteria under which 
Microsoft may ``certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business [products and services].'' This is because, having been 
found unanimously guilty of being a monopoly and all the aspects of 
the aformentioned, it is incumbant upon Microsoft to continue, in 
part or in whole, to conduct its' business as it did prior to any 
ajudication of guilt, penality, or constraints.
    Micosoft products, such as ``Office'', have become a quasi-
standard simply by its'

[[Page 25086]]

ubiquity in the market place. And furthermore, Microsofts ubiquity 
in the market place has been deemed to have been established by 
leveraging its' monopoly position in combination with unfair, and 
now deemed by ``fact of law'', illegal business practices. Hence, if 
such products and their underlaying technology (in the form of 
source code, API's, protocols, etc..) has become the aformentioned 
``quasi-standard'' does it not seem reasonable and prudent to 
formalize said standard and allow governance of this standard to be 
done by a consortium of independant agencies. And that the 
underlaying technology involved in this standard be made open, 
insofar as to afford competing business and developers (comercial or 
research based) the opportunities to provide the consumers and 
businesses relying on these product with greater choice, stablility, 
``security'' and flexiblity of products to choose from and 
impliment.
    I strongly urge the ATR-team handling the Microsoft case and 
settlement to redirect their efforts in refining the conditions, 
stipulations, and mandates of the aggrement in order to provide a 
more suitable framework for the use and development of informantion 
technology and computing products and markets. I fear that in its' 
present form the proposed settlement will only further entrench 
Microsofts position in the market place. And it will lead to further 
and costly litigation in the future.
    Thank You.
    Respectfully,
    Curtis Rey R.N. B.S.N.



MTC-00008900

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    I would like it known that I feel this issue should be settled 
as soon as possible. I believe that it is hurting the economy 
greatly and is a waste of tax payer dollars. Money that could be 
used in many other places where it is greatly needed. This is and 
has been one of the biggest scandals in the history of business. For 
the good of all people in the United States of America please settle 
this so Microsoft can get on with business. Business that helps our 
Nation stay on top.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley J. Fabian



MTC-00008901

From: Thomas Grayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:15pm
Subject: Microsolft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    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.
    Please send the special interest parties back to where they came 
from, accept the settlement, and let Microsoft's competitors compete 
in the marketplace instead of the courtroom.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Grayson



MTC-00008902

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    2165 W George Washington Boulevard
    Davenport, Iowa 52804
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have never agreed with the government's decision to sue 
Microsoft, and that is why I support the government's decision to 
settle this case. I am relieved to see this three- year- long 
dispute resolved.
    Microsoft needs to be allowed to go back to its own business 
without having to worry about court costs, and strategies to keep 
the products that they themselves invented. The company has already 
agreed to share information and help other companies compete, and 
this is more than enough to warrant the government ending 
litigation. By settling we can now see positive effects on our 
economy and technology industry. If other companies are concerned 
about Microsoft obeying the settlement, a technical review committee 
will make sure that Microsoft does.
    Thank you for settling with Microsoft and allowing this company 
to devote its resources to more productive activities instead of 
litigation. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Gadient
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008903

From: Donald A McMahon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I believe the current settlement agreement between Microsoft and 
the U.S. Justice Dept. is fair and just for the American consumer 
and Microsoft Company. I believe one of the main objectives of the 
U.S. Justice Dept. is to review policy of any company or persons 
doing business in the United States with the purpose to protect the 
American consumer against unfair trade or fraud. The current 
settlement with its required set conditions for the Microsoft 
Company meets the above objectives. Any revision as requested by 
those States and/or Company not in agreement would send the balance 
of the scale to one side, thus causing an unfair condition to the 
American consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Donald A. McMahon



MTC-00008904

From: Merlin DuVall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Ms,
    This message is probably one that would be agreed with by the 
majority of business owners world wide.
    The user ability of a computer and software is all important in 
the daily survival of small and large businesses.
    The compatibility of the programs in MS Office is all important, 
and is not duplicated elsewhere although they are getting better. 
That is competition at it's best.
    The problem of hackers and viruses today would be magnified 
greatly is the windows information was made available for industry 
use.
    Although the legal process is primarily concerned with domestic 
monopolies I would like to make the point that the world market is 
getting smaller fast, and even the events September 11th illustrate 
how we cannot help but look beyond the boundaries of the USA when 
considering what the ramifications are decision made here.
    Foreign computer hard ware and soft ware manufactures are going 
to benefit most by any information that is made non proprietary by 
the court decisions.
    Keeping technology in this country should be the primary 
concern. The settlement must take these points into consideration 
and not just the complaints of computer companies in this country 
that have put their ladders against the wrong wall as far as 
illustrating that they cannot operate their businesses without 
gaining ms proprietary information. Thank you in advance for 
considering my opinion.
    Merlin D. DuVall CEO
    The MERLIN Process



MTC-00008905

From: Mike Ervin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In reguards to the settlement I am unsure if this is supposed to 
be a letter of aggreement to the settlement or a forum to coplain 
about the way microsoft has integrated its software. But from my 
point of view I would like to air a complaint about the way 
microsoft has integrated its mail client ``Outlook'' with its 
instant messanger product. The Instant messager is launched 
everytime I launch Outlook and I consider this to be a possible 
security problem and a resource hog. I have written to microsoft and 
they have informed me that thier is no way to seperate them.
    Please let me know if other avenues are avaliable or if I have 
done this properly, thank you
    Mike Ervin



MTC-00008906

From: Eric Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Usually I take a passive approach, but recent MICROSOFT ACTIONS 
ARE OUT OF ETHICAL LINES. I'm not sure if you've heard but MS is now 
advertising that you better have MS licenses or face steep fines 
and/or jail time. I'm not pro-SUN or pro-MS. I am for individuals 
and business to be rewarded fairly for intellectual and business 
properties, but I think all of these companies have scum

[[Page 25087]]

bag business practices. In fact because I work as a net admin in a 
Cisco/Sun/MS shop and have been working on upgrades I've recently 
had to deal with Sun no prime no vaseline fu$%-Ng. In the Sun case 
the company went in search of needed upgrades. What MS is basically 
doing is saying that they are going to come to your place of 
business and force you to upgrade to their latest software 
platforms. Of course MS are not directly saying that. Their taking 
the moral stance of appointing themselves as the software Gestapo 
who claims every company is using MS software illegally. The company 
I currently work for is a software company and believes highly that 
all software developed for business initiatives should be paid for. 
If they didn't they wouldn't be in business. I've been working in 
the technology field for over ten years with the last six directly 
involved in information systems. I have worked for many companies 
within that period of time and I have yet to work for one company 
that did not make it top priority to have software licenses for all 
software in use by the company. What MS is doing is wrong and even 
though it is NOT in the publics best interest it is supported by our 
government.
    Should we allow one company to force their software on the 
entire computing community? The government thinks so because they 
have sponsored Microsoft's business practices, which have made it so 
other companies can not compete with Microsoft desktop office and 
Internet software, which in turn will make these forced Microsoft 
upgrades policies possible. Maybe the government should allow every 
company in the world to come to your home or place of business to 
force you to show them receipts for every item that you have in your 
possession. If you don't have a receipt for the item in your 
possession than the manufacturing company can confiscate any and all 
items and can willfully impose a fine unless you buy the companies 
latest product. Looks like the government loves this idea...
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008907

From: Ty Vore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:19pm
Subject: I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting 
the BeOS or equivalent back into the mar
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: MS Office needs 
to be opened, so that developers interested in porting it or 
understanding the document formats can do so either in form of a 
source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone 
libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can read and 
write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with Windows users.
    The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM 
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual- boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
    It has to carry a competitive impact statement, explaining how 
MS damaged Be and the BeOS with its tactics. It should also say that 
the current ``remedy'' the DOJ is suggesting is far too weak and 
that it doesn't carry all areas.
    I truely belive that competition in computer operating systems 
is a good thing. Watching the number of computers contantly being 
attacked by hackers makes me believe that more diversity means more 
security.
    Ty S. Vore



MTC-00008908

From: jim (sparky)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    James E. Cliff Jr.
    11808 Liming-Van Thompson Road
    Hamersville, Ohio 45130
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The settlement offered by the Department of Justice, and 
accepted by Microsoft, to settle the antitrust case seems to be 
about all that can be hoped for in today's political climate.
    My personal preference would have been for the government to 
stay out of the mix altogether. After three plus years and untold 
millions it is time to end this case.
    I have a great deal of trepidation anytime I see government 
mixing in subjects that can only cause technological stagnation and 
higher costs in the long term.
    I am in support of the decision of the Department of Justice to 
settle this case. Please, end this case now.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Cliff Jr.



MTC-00008909

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microscope Settlement
    To the U.S.Gov't:
    Please ``get off the back of Bill Gates''. Because of Bill Gates 
and the ``Windows'' operating system, he has made available to the 
common man and senior citizens in particular, the wonders of the 
internet and computers in generals. He has provided many jobs for 
many people and is blessing to America. That is what America is--
most anybody can succeed is they work hard and have a little sense.
    Those who are complaining don't really care about the rest of 
us--they only care that someone else is making more money than them 
and are jealous they didn't create windows first.
    Thank you.



MTC-00008910

From: Virginia Vietz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion a settlement between all parties would be in the 
best interest of everyone, Microsoft, the DOJ and most of all the 
consumers. Please don't drag this out any longer.
    Virginia Vietz
    4680 Wornath Rd.
    Missoula, MT 59804



MTC-00008911

From: lcueroni(a)gate.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: As a computer user, and a concerned US citizen, I am 
delighted that the Microsoft case is near settlement. In my opinion 
a final settlement in favor of Microsoft is overdue. A favorable 
settlement would allow Microsoft to return fully to the business of 
developing more beneficial software and operating systems in the 
computer industry, and would certainly have a positive and 
stimulating effect on the US economy. I am fairly familiar with the 
nearly four year litigation against Microsoft, and at no time have I 
felt that there was a viable anti-trust case against them. 
Discussions with my computer literate, and non computer literate 
friends, overwhelmingly agree that a settlement is good for them, 
the industry, and the US economy. Thank you for your time and 
consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Lee A. Cueroni,
    Commander, USN (ret.) God Bless America.
    CC:lee cueroni,[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008912

From: yergan john
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opinion concerning the pending microsoft 
case. The proposed settlement between microsoft and doj is more than 
fair to consumers. The best thing for consumers is to let microsoft 
move on, providing consumers worldwide with the kind of software it 
has been producing for years.
    Microsoft competitors need to compete on their own, not with the 
aid of even more government intervention.
    Microsoft is the best thing that has happened to the US economy 
in the last quarter century. It is time for everyone to move on. The 
already proposed remedies are more than sufficient. People like 
Larry Ellison and Scott McNeely have no interest in fairness. All 
they care about is winning. The state attorney generals who are not 
accepting of the doj settlement are responding to biased interests.
    John Yergan



MTC-00008913

From: Rodger Small
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25088]]

    I believe that Microsoft is displaying monopolisticly in the 
marketplace. The fact there is no alternative PC operating system 
widely used is simple recognition of that behavior. Another 
indication of monopolistic behavior is no price competition in the 
marketplace. Win98se has been around $90 retail even with the advent 
of two successive operating systems and one year later.
    Microsoft has removed all competitors and has no need to be 
price competitive. I feel a fine of $10 billion would not be 
excessive. The fact that Microsoft has four times that much short 
term cash available means something is lacking on the competitive 
side of things, and also on the DOJ side of things watching the 
marketplace too.
    Microsoft makes good products, but they are too proud of their 
products.
    Thanks.
    Rodger Small



MTC-00008914

From: Linda Mattox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a longtime user of Microsoft products, I am very disturbed by 
the intransigence of special interests in resisting the proposed 
settlement. The continued unwillingness of some to accept a 
reasonable settlement is a drain on resources that could well be 
spent on other matters. The seemingly endless churning of matters is 
only good for the attorneys and the super-egos who can't seem to let 
go. It is time to move on.
    Linda Mattox
    2591 Perkins Lane West
    Seattle, WA 98199
    (206)283-9216



MTC-00008915

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In accordance with the recently passed Tunney Act, this e-mail 
is a public comment on the Microsoft settlement. As an American 
citizen, I believe that prolonging the litigation against the 
Microsoft Corporation is not conducive to our country's economic 
wellbeing. I would like to see a settlement reached quickly and 
decisively. Such a speedy resolution is in the best interests of the 
public. Thank you for your time and consideration of public opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Allison K. Rone



MTC-00008916

From: tupler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough!
    Get off the back of MSFT and get back protecting the country. 
This whole suit was a pathetic attempt by the liberal, intrusive, 
Clinton-ites to stifle business and free markets. MSFT is NOT a 
monopoly, has NOT hurt consumers, and HAS wasted enough $$ (along 
with the DOJ wasting enough of MY tax dollars). If you dont like 
MSFT products, dont use them!! There really are other alternatives!!
    MY DEMANDS AS A US CITIZEN AND TAX PAYER: PLEASE END THIS 
NONSENSE NOW!!!
    Regards,
    Marc Tupler
    Santa Fe, NM



MTC-00008917

From: Charles Karney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From: Charles Karney
    702 Prospect Ave.
    Princeton, NJ 08540-4037
    E-mail: [email protected] (not for publication)
    To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Date: January 5, 2002
    Re: Proposed Settlement in United States vs Microsoft
    I have used computers professionally for the past 30 years. 
Currently I am employed by Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ. In 
this position, I have, for the past two years, coordinated the 
research computing needs of a start-up company, Locus Discovery, 
Inc. Locus Discovery uses novel computational techniques to design 
small-molecule drugs, and at the core of this method is software 
running on a 2000-processor computer cluster running the Linux 
operating system.
    Linux has provided a incredible opportunities to deploy massive 
computing resources in an extremely cost-effective manner. This has 
resulted in great opportunities for America's small companies to 
realize innovative technologies.
    In this context, I find that the proposed settlement in the 
United Status vs Microsoft to be too narrowly drawn and to allow 
Microsoft too many opportunities to interpret the settlement to its 
advantage and to the detriment of the consumer.
    The proposed settlement governs the market in desktop PCs 
running the Windows operating system. In most companies, this 
computing environment coexists with other platforms: Windows and 
non-Windows servers, desktop systems running other operating 
systems, handheld computing devices, etc. With the settlement of 
this case, the U.S. has an opportunity to foster as wide a range of 
choice as possible in all these areas of computing and to prevent 
Microsoft from extending its illegally maintained monopoly. This 
will allow U.S. companies choose the best tools for a particular job 
enhancing the overall competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
    I believe that there is a straightforward way for the U.S. to 
ensure this while allowing Microsoft the continued ``freedom to 
innovate'':
    Microsoft should be required to publish technical specifications 
for all its network protocols, all its data formats, and all its 
application programming interfaces. The specifications should be 
sufficiently detailed to allow others to offer competing 
implementations and Microsoft should explicitly allow such 
implementations, providing, if necessary, royalty-free licenses to 
permit this.
    Let me provide two examples:
    (1) Microsoft should publish the specifications of the file 
formats using by its ``Microsoft Office'' suite. This will enable 
other office suites to read and write files in a compatible way. 
These office suites will likely be available on non-Windows 
platforms, and this will mean that consumer will not be forced to 
purchase a Windows platform merely because of the need to read 
documents produced by Microsoft Office. A consumer may still choose 
to use Microsoft Office (because he perceives that it provides to 
the best way to produce his documents) and he may choose to use 
Windows because of his perception of its benefits. However, he will 
now have a choice. This will be at no cost to Microsoft's 
flexibility to create good software. On the contrary, it will offer 
an incentive to Microsoft to improve the implementation of its 
office suite since it will now need to compete against comparable 
compatible products.
    (2) Microsoft created a protocol called ``Server Message Block'' 
to permit files and printers to be shared between Windows systems. 
There is a free implementation of this protocol called Samba which 
allows the sharing to take place between Windows and non-Windows 
platform. This offers a clear benefit to consumers. Unfortunately, 
the Samba implementation is hampered by the need to ``reverse 
engineer'' the details of the protocol. Microsoft should remove this 
impediment by publishing the protocol and specifications of 
additional protocols, e.g., for user authentication.
    Some of the restrictions in the proposed settlement are overly 
restrictive and should be removed. Two such examples are: (1) The 
proposed settlement limits the provision of information to companies 
which Microsoft considers to be bona fide businesses. This 
restriction would exclude the ``Open Source'' community which is 
responsible for Samba and Linux. Microsoft should make the 
information available to all, e.g., by publishing it on a publicly 
available web site, and the needed royalty-free licenses should 
permit implementations by anyone.
    (2) The proposed settlement also allows Microsoft to avoid 
disclosure of information which would ``compromise security''. 
Unfortunately, this provision is open to abuse by Microsoft. Good 
security protocols can be (and are) published in full without 
compromising their security. This provision creates a perverse 
incentive to Microsoft to craft poor security protocols which rely 
on ``security through obscurity'', a rightly derided mechanism for 
computer security. By requiring the publication this information, 
the U.S. would be stimulating innovation in the entire computer 
industry. The situation would be similar to two other periods where 
the establishment of computing standards lead to explosive growth: 
the creation of the PC market by the publication of the hardware 
standards for PCs, and the creation of the world wide web by the 
publication of standards for HTML and the underlying networking 
protocols.

[[Page 25089]]

    I urge the U.S. to reject the proposed settlement and to create 
one which will have a clear benefit to the consumer.



MTC-00008918

From: Anonymous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read through the settlement and agree. It seems fair 
without being destructive to Microsoft and outlines fair business 
practices and treatment of competetors, OEM's, etc. I would not have 
agreed with splitting the company or forcing it to release it's 
code, which would be unfairly advantageous to Microsoft's 
competitors.
    I also think the settlement will help Microsoft's products and 
other software products to work better together, enabling computer 
software technology to advance at a faster pace, which, of course, 
is advantageous to consumers.



MTC-00008919

From: Repairman Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    The current Microsft settlement is inadequate punishment for a 
company that leverage bute force and illegal tactics to gain control 
of 95% of the computer market with an inferior product. The notion 
that making microsoft give away computers does nothing to punish 
them, it only allows them to market their products to an ever 
younger and impressionable consumers. Such a settlement only rewards 
this company and gives it free marketing rights inside schools.
    I am part of a worldwide network of computer users that is 
working on getting and alternative operating system into the market 
place. Free competition is the backbone of the American way of life. 
Having a choice of what I will purchase and what I will use is my 
right as an american. By leveraging their market dominance against 
hardware manufacturers and other computer software makers, Microsoft 
controls the computer market. This much is known. There is no 
question of Microsoft's guilt. Now that they have been found guilty, 
they want to settle and get off with a slap on the wrist, even a 
reward for their crimes.
    Microsoft should pay for what they have done, and the damage 
they have inflicted on computer users and companies that have 
suffered as a result of microsofts crimes. The DOJ should FORCE 
Microsoft to ``play flairly'' with other companies. A fair and just 
ruling against microsoft should address the following issues:
    *MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers and other 
software makers interested in porting it or understanding the 
document formats can do so either in form of a source code licence 
or an allowance to see it, check it and ``clone libraries'', so that 
applications on non-Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats 
for flawless interaction with Windows users. The control MS has 
exerted it akin to forcing everyone to use their brand of pen and 
paper, and making it incompatable with ever other type of pen and 
paper available. This puts our private information into a box that 
can only be opened with a MS-brand key.
    *The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that programs like WINE can be successfully ported to other 
OS. Almost ever computer program written now can ony be run on MS 
windows. Microsoft controls our data.
    *The MS file system needs to be opened, so that users of 
programs other than Windows can access their data.
    *The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM 
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to allow the option of a 
loading and/or booting an alternative operating system.
    *This ruling must carry a competitive impact statement, 
explaining how MS damaged Be Inc. and other companies with its 
tactics. It should also say that the current ``remedy'' the DOJ is 
suggesting is far too weak and that it doesn't carry all areas.
    Only by addressing this issues will Microsoft be trully held 
accountable for their actions.
    Microsoft must be made to understand that they must run their 
business in a manner consitsent with the laws of our country, and 
that if they want to continue to do business here, they must respect 
the right of consumers to NOT use MS products if they so choose.
    Thank you for your time,
    Nathan Babcook
    St. Louis, MO



MTC-00008920

From: Tom Kirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement and Free Trade
    I agree with the settlement reached to allow Microsoft the 
'right of freedom to innovate' and not have their hands tied in 
markets due to interest groups and government interference. It is 
the right decision for an open and free market and for consumers 
world wide.
    On another note, I want to comment on the US government's 
sanctions (through countervail and anti-dumping actions) on Canadian 
softwood lumber industry. Rich interest groups in the US (with the 
US government support) are trying to place ARTIFICIAL economic 
barriers on Canadian softwood lumber entering the US. Lumber that is 
required for the housing in the US. This practice raises the cost of 
housing in the US and keeps Americans out of the housing market.
    If the US truly believes in free and open markets (a comment 
that Americans make all the time), then interest groups should not 
be able to put barriers on products needed by the US. The US and 
Canada are the largest traders in the world and the sanctions 
imposed on the Canadian softwood industry is a slap in the face of a 
country that supports the United States of America. In my mind, the 
softwood lumber issue should be settled once and for all--a product 
that is part of the free and open market between Canada and the US.
    Tom Kirk
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008921

From: Pokey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the Dept. of Justice case was a case where 
Microsoft's competition and the greedy lawyers used the tort system 
in an unwarranted attack on Microsoft. The only thing they 
accomplished was to temporarily destroy the technology industry and 
thus help precipitate the recession which this country is still in.
    I believe the Justice Dept. case settlement was fair and that 
the 9 states still proceeding against Microsoft are just more of the 
same legal greed for money and fame, and that the sooner their case 
is dropped, the sooner this country and the economy will benefit.



MTC-00008922

From: Pokey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the Dept. of Justice case was a case where 
Microsoft's competition and the greedy lawyers used the tort system 
in an unwarranted attack on Microsoft. The only thing they 
accomplished was to temporarily destroy the technology industry and 
thus help precipitate the recession which this country is still in.
    I believe the Justice Dept. case settlement was fair and that 
the 9 states still proceeding against Microsoft are just more of the 
same legal greed for money and fame, and that the sooner their case 
is dropped, the sooner this country and the economy will benefit.
    Marvin Weisbard
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00008923

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:14pm
Subject: Micrsoft suit
    Please accept the government settlement and do not involve 
anything further with the states.
    Thank You
    Roger E. Wehrs M.D.



MTC-00008924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is fair to all concerned and 
should be ratified. The Tunney Act should be passed. The economy 
does not need the government fighting one of our most successful 
corporations. I urge you to settle with Microsoft, and let all 
companies compete and continue the innovations which propelled our 
economy for so long.
    Thank you,
    Rosemary Loven
    Bishop, CA



MTC-00008925

From: Doug Singer
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/5/02  4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25090]]

    It is time to put this behind us, the citizens do not need 
government prosecuting companies because a few competitors feel they 
are unable to compete in the marketplace. Most of the states still 
pushing for a court date are doing so because they have a vested 
interest in one of the competitors of Microsoft. I as a consumer 
feel Microsoft has offered to me the products I want and need, at a 
competitive price. I would like to see my tax dollars at work 
helping to rebuild the economy, not trying to tear down a strong 
part of the economy. Enough is enough, please settle this now so we 
can move on!
    Douglas C. Singer, MBA CIC
    Hall-Conway-Jackson,Inc.
    Insurance Brokers
    206-527-2444



MTC-00008926

From: Jim Bode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the proposed settlement, I am for it. Please do 
not give in to Microsoft's competitors and end up drawing this 
frivolous lawsuit out any longer. It is in the best interest of the 
consumer and the United States of America in general for this 
lawsuit to be settled.
    Sincerely,
    James J. Bode



MTC-00008927

From: Judy (038) Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My husband and I wholeheartly support the settlement toward 
Microsoft. Too many companies in our country have been derailed 
because of deregulation. Microsoft is an inovative, agressive leader 
in the world of cyber technology. Continue to let this company 
blossum and create ways for all citizens to benefit from the headway 
that is already in place. Do not take the wind from beneath its 
sails!!!



MTC-00008928

From: Burd, Noreen (ING)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/5/02  4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 7, 2002
    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:
    It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is now 
accepting public comment on the Microsoft settlement. I write in 
support of the proposal.
    As our nation's economy continues to slow, many consumers are 
out of work and businesses must do more with less. I am concerned 
that if we continue to pursue the government's case against 
Microsoft, further tying the hands of technology, we will make it 
less and less attractive for investment in this industry. We cannot 
afford to have this happen. We need to encourage investment in order 
to spur an upturn in the economy.
    I believe it is time for the government to stop spending 
taxpayer's dollars on this case and allow both the judicial system 
and Microsoft to get back to work on more pressing matters. During 
this time of recession and national insecurity, the government's 
efforts could be better spent prosecuting criminals that truly 
endanger the American people and their economy rather than 
Microsoft.
    I am certain that the regulations put forth in the decision will 
ease the government's concerns about a Microsoft monopoly and should 
allow Microsoft' s competitors and consumers themselves some 
additional benefits. However further regulations and/or restrictions 
may result in inferior, expensive products and complicated internet 
access.
    Continued litigation against Microsoft at this time would be 
unnecessary and ultimately harmful to the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Noreen Burd
    39 Blackwater Road
    Penacook, NH 03303



MTC-00008929

From: Wagner Investments
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that I agree with the proposed settlement. The 
case has nothing to do with protecting the consumer, and is strictly 
driven by competitors who can or could not compete. In the age of a 
global economy the US need as many powerful and large companies as 
possible. Look at the mess telecom is in due to the break up of 
AT&T.
    Ronald E Wagner
    Barbara F. Wagner



MTC-00008930

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    My vote goes to settle the Microsoft case as proposed. Further 
litigation is costly, time consuming, anti-big business, and does 
not represent our democratic society.
    Thank you.
    Terry R. Glass



MTC-00008931

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For gosh sakes, get off Microsoft's back. Microsoft's 
competitors are and have been trying to use antitrust to do what 
they couldn't do in the market place. Maybe Microsoft does dominate 
the operating system market. But how did they get there--by having 
the best product. Does the government penalize free enterprise? 
Looks that way.
    Approve the settlement and let Microsoft get on with their 
business.
    Boyd Wilkes
    13911 Aspen Cove Drive
    Houston, Texas 77077-1521



MTC-00008932

From: Paul Tholfsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to see this suit settled as quickly as possible. I 
don't understand the entire logic behind it. I have repeatedly read 
that the purpose of anti-trust legislation is to protect the 
consumer public. Yet all the objections to the settlement proposal 
seem to be based on protecting the competitors of Microsoft, at the 
expense of the consumer.
    I've been a CPA for thirty years. During this time our firm has 
gone through the entire range of business software, beginning with 
Wordstar word processor, Visicalc spreadsheet, DBase-2 database, as 
well as the CPM and Apple operating systems. We made a number of 
costly migrations along the way, including Wordperfect, Lotus 123, 
R-Base, and Harvard Graphics. Eventually, and for the past six 
years, we have settled on all Microsoft software: Word, Excel, 
Access, PowerPoint and Windows operating system.
    The point is that we did this for three very good reasons, and 
without any coercion:
    1.. The MS products, while initially inferior to their 
predecessor rivals, gradually improved and overcame them.
    2.. As more and more of our clients and other people with whom 
we do business apparently made the same choices, it became easier 
and easier for us to share files, send e-mail, etc.. It's hard to 
imagine how we made it in the days when there were at least half a 
dozen different and incompatible word processors, spreadsheets and 
databases available. In fact, the one relevant area which MS doesn't 
dominate is accounting software. Here, we're still faced with having 
to deal with over a dozen different packages, to the detriment of 
our clients.
    3.. The cost of the software is negligible when measured against 
the utility and ability to improve our own efficiency.
    Some of the demands I see being made by the plaintiffs and their 
witnesses seem absurd. The compatibility benefits resulting from 
Microsoft's dominance in office software is an obvious advantage to 
all users. To return to the relative chaos of multiple operating 
systems, and word processing and other office software in the hope 
of creating what some university economists see as a theoretically 
beneficial competitive environment, makes as much sense as requiring 
each telephone company to use its own incompatible communication 
system, or each railroad to select its own rail gauge.
    This case should be settled as expeditiously as possible. If the 
US and Microsoft have come to an agreeable settlement, the Court 
should accept it and not prolong this case any further.
    Paul Tholfsen
    2626 South Park Drive
    Bellingham, WA 98225-2524
    360-734-9343
    [email protected]



MTC-00008933

From: James Bach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25091]]

    In my humble opinion, the settlement with Microsoft is fair and 
equitible. Give it a rest, and let MS get back to supplying the 
products that people want to buy and use!
    Of course, I don't think the DOJ should have been picking-on 
Microsoft in the first place it is just another example of the sore 
loosers of the country (Netscape, Lotus, Oracle, etc.) whining and 
complaining about not being able to compete and needing the 
government to come-in an ``level the playing field'' like 
affirmative action. Again, another case of someone having a dream, 
working hard, making a product (or products) that people want to 
buy/use, and then being punished because they were TOO successful. 
Certainly a lesson (to NOT work hard for fear of being persecuted by 
those who don't/can't) I do NOT want to teach my kids.
    Did Microsoft strong-arm OEM suppliers to install his operating 
system and web-browser on their newly-sold systems? Yes. Did he 
FORCE them to do it? No. They DID have options and alternatives. 
They could have offered other operating systems, or even NO 
operating system. They could have charged a bit more per system to 
sell it with JUST Windows and NOT Internet Explorer. There was 
nothing that Microsoft did that prevented computer makers from 
selling systems configured how they (or the buying public) wanted 
them. There is nothing in Windows that prevents users from 
installing other office suite or web-browsers. I've been using 
Netscape for years and years. Netscape and IE both co-exist quite 
nicely.
    I've built my own systems from scratch, and I could (and did) 
put ANY operating system, office suite, and/or browser on them that 
I wanted. I chose Windows because it is easy to use, and ALL of the 
software in the world (that I want to use) runs on Windows. I chose 
Internet Explorer for web-browsing because of some of it's better 
features/capabilities. I chose Netscape for e-mail because of some 
of it's better features/capabilities (and because there are fewer 
viruses and hacks against it), instead of MS Outlook. Yes, I use MS 
Office (Word and Excel) at home, but I could have bought Lotus or 
WordPerfect. I chose Office because that's what I use at work, and I 
do NOT want to learn two different packages. But, that was MY 
choice. Nobody put a gun against my head. I could have installed 
LINUX or OS2, but then I'd only be able to run about 5% of software 
I desire.
    The computing world is better-off because of Microsoft, 
precisely BECAUSE of the benefits that a centralized, core, 
standards-based OpSys can provide. At work I'm forced to use a UNIX 
workstation.
    Unfortunately, UNIX is not UNIX is not UNIX; it is different 
from platform (machine) to machine. In the UNIX workstation world 
you are FORCED to use the UNIX (and the related ``Window Manager'') 
that is shipped by the hardware maker. I have an HP machine, so I 
have to use Hewlett Packards' (gag me with a fork!) version of UNIX 
and ``Desktop Environment''. The software engineer who sits across 
from me uses a Sun workstation, and has to use Solaris (luck him!). 
Because there is no ``core'' or ``standards setting'' entity in the 
UNIX world, UNIX applications suck when it comes to consistent look/
feel, modus opperandi, and data-exchange between applications. Copy 
and Paste of formatted data??? What is THAT?? Doesn't exist on UNIX. 
All you can copy/paste is raw ASCII text. Jeez, thanx. Because 
Microsoft dictates how the Windows environment works, on ALL 
platforms that run it, the vast majority of PC applications look/
feel/act/behave the same (or VERY similar). Because Microsoft 
dictates how the Windows environment works, virtually ALL 
applications can copy/paste formatted text and tabular or image data 
back/forth between themselves. I hate the ``Tower of Babel'' that 
exists in UNIXland so much (as do my fellow engineers in my company) 
that we've been pushing our IT folks for years to throw-away UNIX in 
favor of WindowsNT. Our dream is starting to come true.
    Engineering management, who PAYS for the computers in our 
department, finally told the IT folks to buy Windows2000 machines, 
and to exchange our UNIX software licenses for NT licenses. UNIX has 
been around longer than Microsoft, and UNIX IS more stable (crash-
proof) than Windows .-.-. however, because there is no centralized 
core of ``standards setters'', it has never, and never will, become 
as user-friendly and easy-to-use as Windows. I don't mind having to 
reboot my system every once in a while if while I'm using it I'm 
much more productive than the rock-solid, stable system!
    James C. (Jim) Bach
    Westfield, IN
    Ham Radio: WY9F



MTC-00008934

From: Joyce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please DO NOT let a few special interest people create more 
problems for Microsoft AND the American consumer. We DO NOT need 
more litigation in this case. Let the settlement take affect as 
stated. This country has enough economic problems. We do not need to 
cater to special interest people who care only about themselves and 
not America as a whole.
    Thank You.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce P. Johnson
    5031 Regalo Dr.
    Pensacols, FL 32526-1602



MTC-00008935

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. They have a great product, great customer 
support, and have done wrong. They are good business people, and 
deserve whatever fortune they have gained.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008936

From: The Dews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert Dew
    5564 Ribbon Rose Drive
    Jacksonville, Florida 32258
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Competition is the driving force behind a free market capitalist 
society. Without competition the entire system is unworkable. I 
believe that the antitrust lawsuit filed against Microsoft almost 
seriously threatened to hinder competition within the information 
technology market. I was relieved when a settlement was finally 
reached in November.
    The agreement drafted in November is quite positive. Some of the 
beneficial terms in the settlement are; the settlement provides for 
the increase in competition among software companies by prohibiting 
Microsoft from entering into any agreements with third parties that 
would restrict the third party to distributing exclusively Microsoft 
software, the settlement further lends to an increase in competition 
by requiring Microsoft to share interface capabilities with other 
competitor software companies.
    Clearly, this settlement promotes competition, and competition 
is good. By not overly restricting Microsoft or the information 
technology market, this settlement is going to be beneficial for the 
economy. No changes need to be made. I urge you to keep the 
settlement in its current form.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Dew
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008937

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle the case as now the court has ruled. Microsoft has been 
subject to too much hassle from competitors and their 
representatives.James P. Nieukirk.
    Email at [email protected]



MTC-00008939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Justice Dept.,
    I want to encourage the government to settle the lawsuit with 
Microsoft as soon as possible. Please except the Tunney agreement. 
Thank You.
    Dan Roloff
    945 Hillandale Dr. E.
    Port Orchard, WA 98366
    [email protected]



MTC-00008940

From: PAUL KIRTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft case pending
    Microsoft has done more good that harm. Ease up on them and 
allow a great company to operate as they have agreed too.
    Paul A. Kirton
    Managing Director
    Kirton & Associates

[[Page 25092]]



MTC-00008941

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First let me state that the trial which led to a requirement to 
break Microsot into some number of companies to be an absolute 
travesty of Justice. I do not see Microsoft to be amy more of a 
monopoly then IBM was in the late 1960's and 1970's as regards to 
mainframes. Were any actions ever taken against IBM? Whatever 
happened to UNIVAC , XEROX, and a myriad of other mainframe 
builders? I consider myself a data processing professional, and not 
only do I agree with the proposed settlement, but I would be in 
favosr of dropping all charges against Microsoft. If you believe 
Microsoft is a monopoly how do you explain the successes of Apple OS 
and LINUX.
    Jules C. Domingue



MTC-00008942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I know of nothing Microsoft has done wrong. Please just leave 
them alone and get on with the next case. I hate your waste of our 
tax money like this. How can our next innovator stand a chance in 
such an atmosphere?
    Len Rutledge



MTC-00008943

From: FlyingNuts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I have watched the wonderful things Microsoft has done for our 
Industry, our Government and our lives over the last 20 years. Were 
it not for Microsoft's inovative products we would still be in the 
dark ages in home and business computing.
    The objective of any business is to beat their competitors. 
However you overlook the merger of Netscape and AOL, and the merger 
of Time Warner and AOL. You let the oil companies merge and 
monopolyse our resources.
    Stop the insanity and leave microsoft alone. You have cost the 
Country ``billions'', and bankrupted the small investors in your 
``take down of the microsoft and tech companies.''
    It's time to set aside this case and let wounds heal. Let 
Microsoft advance us into the new century!
    Douglas Harper



MTC-00008944

From: JOY BROWN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    We feel the proposed settlement for Microsoft and the states is 
as just as can be expected and would like to see it proceed to a 
conclusion. To try to make the settlement tougher or prolong it more 
would not be in the best interest of the economy or the consumers. 
Sincerely,
    Joy R. Brown
    Lila M. Brown
    1526 Thomas St. SW
    Olympia, WA 98502



MTC-00008945

From: GEORGE PORZUC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    5951 Price Road
    Milford, Ohio 45150
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion and to thank you for settling 
the Microsoft suit. It is a step in the right direction. I believe 
that the settlement is more than adequate. It forces Microsoft to 
share proprietary information that will allow other companies the 
more easily implant their software on the Windows operating system. 
The settlement will also create a technical oversight committee that 
will ensure Microsoft behaves properly for the duration of the 
settlement. The government should take no further action on this 
matter.
    This suit has had a very negative impact on the marketplace and 
me personally. We are in midst of a recession--in my case a 
depression. Now is the time to rebuild our economy by supporting 
American businesses. We should reward those who contribute to our 
economy. After all, our nation was built on principles of free 
enterprise, and since I have been out of work since July. I want to 
get back to being a contributing member of society.
    Thank you for resolving this issue. I appreciate the opportunity 
to speak on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    George A. Porzuc



MTC-00008946

From: Alan Simkatis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:06pm
Subject: Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My husband and I both feel strongly that this suit against 
Microsoft has been going on long enough. It is not in the good of 
the country for us to be hanging our own out to dry. It is time to 
settle this suit, and see if we can't help ourselves to help our 
economy, in the process. Please, settle now!
    Sincerely,
    Anne & Alan Simkatis



MTC-00008947

From: Joseph Wang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:24pm
Subject: Settlement for microsoft
    Dear Person:
    I do think it is for the everage amercian citizens interest to 
settle the case with Microsoft inc. God bless American
    Joseph Wang



MTC-00008948

From: Martin Caron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    1.. MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested 
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either 
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can 
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    2.. The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    3.. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    4.. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with
    HAS to ``dual-boot'' an alternative operating system, in this 
case BeOS, in order to remedy the damage MS has done to BeOS in the 
past.
    In other word, i want microsoft to have right only ``inside'' 
their software but allow all API, audi/video codec, file format 
etc... to be public. They can keep the source to themself i don't 
care (i don't want their buggy software anyway) but all programming 
hook and protocol should be public and available under a NDA if it 
pose security problems.
    Martin Caron, hurted: shareholder, consumer, hobbyist, 
programmer, student by Microsoft practice.



MTC-00008949

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:23pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I'm totally against any further legal action against Microsoft. 
This action has been perpetrated by lawyers and liberals that want 
to destroy our vibrant market economy.
    This action will not benefit the consumer nor the economy. I 
strongly urge the court to bring to a close this damaging and 
wasteful fraud on our legal and economic systems.



MTC-00008950

From: Herb Himmelfarb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Sirs,
    Mrs. Himmelfarb and I believe the proposed settlement fails to 
achieve the necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal 
conduct of Microsoft, promoting competition in this industry, and 
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains. Perhaps we are just 
whistling in the dark, what with there being a Republican, therefore 
business oriented, administration in the White House. However, we do 
believe that Justice should triumph over naked greed.
    In a case of this magnitude, what is best for our country as a 
whole should prevail over what has become convenient. It is our hope 
that Justice will succeed.

[[Page 25093]]

    Cynthia P. Himmelfarb
    Herbert S. Himmelfarb
    615 19th Street NE
    Salem, OR 97301-2713
    (503) 375-2934
    [email protected]



MTC-00008951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree with the settlement.
    Joyce Owens



MTC-00008952

From: kathy baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settelment
    PLEASE END THIS CASE WITH THE SETTLEMENT IN FAVOR OF 
MICROSOFT!!!
    PLEASE!!!!
    Thank You,
    Kathy Baker



MTC-00008954

From: Jerry Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:31pm
Subject: Respect for law will disappear
    One outstanding result of this sham settlement will be that it 
will legalize Microsoft's illegal behavior, which will lead common 
citizens to conclude that the law is merely an inconvenience that 
can be ignored, if not circumvented.
    Even after the conviction was upheld in circuit court, the DOJ 
seems bent on grasping defeat from the jaws of victory by agreeing 
to this sham settlement.
    Will Microsoft be punished for their previous crimes or the 
crimes cited in this conviction? NO!
    No punishment is proposed. Microsoft gets to keep their ill 
gotten gain, while lessor criminals pay grievously in fines, 
penalties and prison time. This is injustice defined! Apparently 
wealth now puts one above the law. All it takes is enough cash to 
buy high powered attorneys and grease politicians.
    Will Microsoft be restrained from continuing their illegal 
behavior? NO!
    In fact, this sham settlement LEGITIMIZES Microsoft's anti-- 
competitive behavior toward the only segment of the software market 
that has been even slightly successful competing against it, the 
Open Source segment. The sham settlement give Microsoft the right to 
determine, by its own definitions, what is a business and what it 
not. No superior intelligence is required to realize what Microsoft 
will do with that power. Why would the DOJ agree to such a 
stipulation? The whole purpose of the litigation was to break the 
monopolistic business practices and level the playing field for ALL 
players. Now the DOJ is helping Microsoft to jack up Microsoft's end 
of the field to unreachable heights, ensuring their illegal 
dominance. It is as if the Feds began brewing beer to GIVE to Al 
Capone's speak easyies, and destroy his competition, as punishment 
for Capone's illegal manufacture and distribution of alcohol. Or, as 
if the Feds not only gave the Mafia a free pass on extortion, 
racketeering, prostitution, and the numbers, but gave a blind eye 
and tacit approval to 'hits' on their competition.
    Does the settlement contain any power of restraint or 
enforcement? NO! Microsoft gets to pick one monitor and have a say 
in the second. That effectively splits the monitors decision process 
and renders them powerless to make critical support decisions. How 
effective would the war in Afghanistan be if half of President's War 
Council were Taliban? The 'teeth' merely extends the toothless 
settlement two more years. Two more years of nothing is still 
nothing. This one condition alone proves that the settlement is a 
``FIX'', as sham.
    The net result of the phoney settlement is that the American 
Citizens will no longer support the law in jury rooms across the 
country. Why should they convict lesser criminals when the bigger 
ones walk free with DOJ HELP? They will see the DOJ not as helpers 
of the helpless, but as aiding and abetting lawlessness. This 
settlement. if upheld, will prove to the American people that the 
DOJ is really DOJ Inc. and it reduce the American legal system to 
the status of 3rd world kangaroo courts run by and for corporations 
and politicians for their own greedy purposes. Recent political 
payoffs, such as the DMCA, and court decisions which make 
Microsoft's EULA a one-way document (they can sue the consumer, but 
the consumer can sue them for breach of contract) have already 
disgraced the judicial branch.
    The forced resolution toward this sham settlement to aliviate 
the grief and economic woes of the nation is laughable. Microsoft 
has already pillaged our economy for billions and billions of 
profits made possible only by illegal monopolistic behavior. This 
settlement will merely put the country at the mercy of even more 
outragious economic extortions. Even now Microsoft is proposing 
unbelievable licensing fee structures that would be impossible if 
the consumer had access to an alternate choice. But, since the OEM 
agreements with Microsoft, along with their secret side agreements, 
pevents the OEMs from even putting alternate operating system on 
their PCs in dual boot mode, or even putting icons to other software 
on their Windows desktops, other browsers, operating systems and 
software have no easy access to public markets.
    So, how does it feel to be a pawn? Maybe Watts will give you and 
idea of what happens to a country when a citizenry looses respect 
for the law because it offers no redress for grievances. Or even 
worse, Argentina. The most favorable reason for supporting this 
agreement would be if one held stocks, options and retirement funds 
mainly in Microsoft. But then, this would be a conflict of interest 
wouldn't it?
    For your even suggesting such a despicable settlement I am not 
so respectfully,
    Jerry Kreps
    521 West Garber Avenue
    Lincoln, NE 68521



MTC-00008955

From: Daniel C King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Daniel C. King
    5531 Burnham Court
    Fort Myers, Florida 33903
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Daniel King and the purpose of this letter is to 
express my concern about the Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit. I 
understand that a settlement on this case has been reached and that 
public opinion is being taken into account in the final decision. I 
hope to see this settlement reach a conclusion as three years of 
legal action is quite adequate.
    In this case, it seems difficult not to mention the AT&T issue. 
Like AT&T, Microsoft is a very successful business and it is 
disconcerting to see that these days, success is punished rather 
than rewarded. I would like to see this case settled in a timely 
fashion. Microsoft has agreed to respect the terms of the settlement 
as well as fair competition and has even already taken action to 
release a new version of Windows that will be more amenable to 
working with other companies? software.
    It is obvious that Microsoft is more than willing to abide by 
the rules of fair competition and I believe that this settlement is 
in the best interest of the public. I appreciate your interest in 
the public opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel King
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00008956

From: RFC-822=Derek--Stevens/Intalco/[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
    DEAR SIRS:
    WE ARE WRITING ON BEHALF OF THE MICROSOFT CORP. WE BELIEVE IT IS 
HIGH TIME THIS THING GOT SETTLED AND PUT BEHIND US. WE THINK OUR 
ECONOMY AND OUR COUNTRY HAS SUFFERED ENOUGH THROUGH THE LAST 3-4 
YEARS, NOT TO MENTION THE PLAINTIFFS. WE THINK THE SETTLEMENT IS A 
FAIR ONE FOR ALL INVOLVED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
    SINCERELY,
    DEREK G. & LATRICIA J. STEVENS



MTC-00008957

From: William Upham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe the proposed settlement agreement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft is in best interest of both the 
public and the high-tech industry.
    This lawsuit has dragged on far too long and needs to be settled 
soon before still further damage is caused to the U.S. economy and 
consumers.
    With the country now on a war footing, the last thing it needs 
is the ongoing uncertainty

[[Page 25094]]

 regarding the outcome of this lawsuit. It is in everyone's best 
interest to settle this case and settle it soon.
    Bill Upham
    Americas Channel Communications
    T/L 542-1205, (972) 280-1205
    FAX: 542-1980, (972) 280-1980
    [email protected]



MTC-00008958

From: John Renk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:50pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone and let the economy be on with it. 
Microsoft never let
    Leave Microsoft alone and let the economy be on with it. 
Microsoft never let me down and gives me updates when I need them. 
You will never get that from another software company.
    The government went after Microsoft because they did not donate 
enough to the Democratic Party.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008959

From: Francesca Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In a world where there is the AOL/Time-Warner monstrosity, it is 
quite beyond me how someone like Microsoft could be considered to 
practice unfair business practices. I have worked with Netscape on 
my computer, and frankly, it takes over, worse than Explorer ever 
did. My ex-husband downloaded AOL for his computer. Just AOL... And 
got in the deal the automatic usage of Netscape. It took several 
clicks of a mouse and a couple of deep searches just to turn off 
Netscape. Frankly, it's quite easy to switch `off' Explorer. And, 
Microsoft doesn't monopolize the `instant messaging' craze. It 
disturbed me greatly when AOL purchased ICQ... And barely even 
announced it to the world.
    In this world, the United States... Microsoft is playing as fair 
a ball as the AOL/Netscape/Sun group of companies that made the 
attempt to gang up on the best programs on the planet.
    Just my two cents
    A concerned US Military Member
    Francesca Ball
    Misawa AB, Japan



MTC-00008960

From: Orlene McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Please for the good of the country settle this dispute 
once and forever This is the best company in the world and you are 
trying to destroy it WHY? The economy started downward the minute 
this happened it is so sad what has happened. They have created more 
jobs and made the technical industry.
    What are the younger generation thinking work hard and if you do 
well the govt. gets involved and try's to destroy you. You should be 
backing them in any way possible not trying to destroy them.
    Live, Love, Laugh



MTC-00008961

From: Allan Corrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:01pm
Subject: d.o.j. settlement
    TO THE D.O.J.
    THE SETTLETMENT OF THE MICROSOFT CASE WITH THE DOJ NEEDS TO BE 
FINALIZED . THOSE STATES THAT ARE KEEPING
    THIS CASE OPEN ARE NOT ACTING FOR THE PEOPLES INTREST. I REQUEST 
IT BE FINLIZED
    ALLAN A. CORRIN REEDLEY CA.



MTC-00008962

From: Ken Dacey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and in the best 
interests of all parties involved. Taxpayer money should not be 
spent in any further proceedings. Allow the remedies to set in and 
the market and consumers will do the rest. It's time to stop 
catering to Microsoft's competitors.
    Thank you,
    Ken Dacey



MTC-00008963

From: gope mirchandani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The very fact DOJ has setteled the case putting the necessary 
and fair penallities,my views may appear superfluous.However 
reiteration by general public should only convince the authorties 
that any further changes will delay the settlement,adversely 
affecting the sinking economy and interests of pubic at large.
    In the free economy, local, state and fedral governments must do 
what benifits the mijority.
    gope mirchandani



MTC
-00008964

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft litigation is O.K., 
albeit unneccesary in the first place. We urge approval; avoid 
wasting resources on further litigation.
    Doug & Jan Jonas



MTC-00008965

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR SIRS:
    I AM NOT A STOCKHOLDER OF MS I AM AN INMIGRANT-ENTERPRENEUR 
PLEASE LEAVE MS ALONE AND LET THE MARKET RULE MAKE MONEY OUT OF 
MICROSOFT THROUGH THEIR EVER-INCREASING PAYROLL TAX, OR PROFIT-
TAXES, NOT THROUGH BACKWARD UN-AMERICAN PENALTIES.
    MARCELO BARREIRO



MTC-00008966

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the microsoft settlement and allow them to 
continue with their good products and let the economy florish. 
Microsoft is a great company and have done wonderful thing for the 
technology industry.



MTC-00008967

From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is in the interest of the general public for 
several reasons:
    1. The whole dispute has been about political interference at 
the behest of companies who needed to use politics when they failed 
in the market place.
    2. Much of this dispute is an effort to prevent Microsoft's best 
product coming to market as competitors know the significance of 
what is taking place and fear they cannot keep up.
    3. The public is feeling the consequences of this maneuvering of 
the market and is certainly not benefiting.
    4. Microsoft has not used its supposed monopoly to hike prices 
and has kept its products reasonably priced.
    5. microsoft works with most companies to get their products 
working well together , it is generally in Microsoft's interest to 
have many products working well together as that inevitably means 
more users total.
    6. Microsoft has given access to education and information and 
communications that would be out of reach of the vast majority of 
the public worldwide. It may not have invented all the current 
technology but it has brought it to market and given the public 
access at a very reasonable price.
    7. to have a multi layer system with different companies trying 
to destroy competitors by preventing the intermixing of products 
would cause confusion with less savvy computer users, a waste of 
much money by people buying products that are quickly obsolete, or 
do not work with some other products, so interrupting the flow of 
information.
    8. The economy is in no shape to continue with a dispute which 
holds up the range of new products which depend on Microsoft's 
operating system to be of use, the sale of which will help rev up 
the economy.
    9. The Microsoft products are aimed at making life easy for the 
consumer. It is to the consumers benefit to have features added to 
the operating system which are easy to access without `having' to go 
out and seek other products. More experienced users have plenty of 
scope for using other products on the operating system, and those 
other companies are themselves vigorous competitors, some of whom 
endeavor to cause difficulty in using Microsoft products
    10. Microsoft products will obviously fit well together as they 
are designed to, and this is good for the many consumers who are not 
so computer savvy and able to seek other options.
    11. Other products such as Real Networks music and video 
products are easily

[[Page 25095]]

downloadable and work well for anyone who chooses to use that in 
preference to Microsoft's products, In fact many sites including 
Britain's BBC front page and news uses Real networks as its default 
media and I have not been able to choose to use Microsoft's media to 
view BBC videos, so much for choice for the consumer, I see no 
objection raised to this and similar bias against Microsoft.
    12. America generally has gained from Microsoft's vision. it 
would behoove the economy to not interrupt that vision. it has not 
seen much of a challenge from within the states and the last thing 
you want is a foreign challenger taking the lead, as this economy 
could then lose its world lead as others have in the past when they 
became complacent or squabbled among themselves!
    member of the public
    felicity marsh



MTC-00008968

From: R.C.
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected] @inetgw,attorney.gener...
Date: 1/5/02  8:36pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Monopoly
    I have been using personal computers for 14 years and have seen 
Microsoft outmaneuver its opponents in the marketplace. I have seen 
the use of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt by Microsoft to excellent 
advantage. The finding of the court in the settlement were common 
knowledge 6/7 years ago and much commented on in the computer 
magazines, at least until Microsoft got control.
    I urge you all to hold firm against the bully from Redmond and 
to pursue the monopoly until it is no more.
    Thank you.
    R.C. Johnston
    7674 Rotherton Way
    Sacramento CA 95823



MTC-00008969

From: Tom Salvador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I am not a legal authority. I cannot say what is and what is not 
a monopoly. What I do know, however, is that Microsoft purchased the 
legal rights to the ``wheel.'' This is not their fault.
    A lot of businesses went along for the ride and profited. Some 
businesses did not and they are the ones who believe Microsoft is 
wrong.
    The public of which I am a member, also profited. Because of 
Microsoft, we could easily exchange data.
    We did not have five different operating systems. We all spoke 
the same language. As DOS was upgraded and later Windows, the 
charges were minimal. Twenty dollars, thirty dollars at the most, 
sometimes less. Windows a little more, but not out of the range of 
the buyer. Did the competition want them to give out the upgrades at 
no charge? Their products were certainly not free!
    Did Microsoft violate any laws or did they practice tough 
business procedures? I don't know.
    Did they cross over the line and hurt the public. I don't think 
so. It is my understanding that our system of justice is to protect 
the citizens and not to help one business over the other.



MTC-00008970

From: Arlene Marie Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunny Act settlement is tough, but reasonable and fair to 
all parties involved.
    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. 
Stick with the settlement.



MTC-00008971

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    stop wasting time negotiating and start litigating!



MTC-00008972

From: Ralph Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading and reviewing the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case, I feel that sufficient hearing have been held.
    Those organizations that are pursuing further litigations are 
greedy and have no just cause for purposed injuries.
    I feel the comprehensive agreement reached by the Federal 
Government and the nine States is fair and should be settled and 
concluded on that bases.
    Ralph and Estella Hahn



MTC-00008974

From: Del
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I would like to say it is time to stop flogging the dead horse.
    End this disruption of free enterprise, don't continue to pacify 
the whiners.
    Enough is enough!
    D. M. Townley



MTC-00008975

From: bleimeister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Enough is enough, as an American Tax Payer its high time to 
settle with Microsoft ! Microsoft products have helped more 
individual citizens, small businesses and developers of new 
businesses than any other software company.
    With Microsoft's ``User Friendly'' software [the best available] 
countless millions of Americans enjoy and personally benefit from 
the resources available from their computers and their corresponding 
access to the internet.
    Microsoft has brought a ``new world'' to a vast number of 
Americans. We must allow them to continue to invent and bring new 
beneficial products to market.
    Our Country is now at war and we can no longer afford to seek 
frivolous, politically induced, judicial remedies for manufacturers 
of inferior products. Let the disgruntled competitors produce 
something better--and let the market place [the everyday buyers and 
users] make the ultimate decision as to which product will help them 
the most.
    Thank you,
    W.C. Bleimeister
    Hilton Head Island
    South Carolina



MTC-00008976

From: Kyle Waters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement is too little too late. Please make 
Mircosoft open up their proprietary formats for their office suits 
and hold them responsible to past and current rulings by putting in 
place observers who can comment directly to the public and the press 
not just a federal judge or committee. It is us the citizens of this 
country who brought the lawsuit against Microsoft through our state 
governments. The observer should report to us.
    Kyle Waters
    Utah



MTC-00008977

From: Joseph Alcott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:43pm
Subject: govt protection?
    This is always a way of generating political capital to finance 
campaigns and to line legal pockets of legal lobbyists.
    May your blessings be eternal.
    Joseph (Senior) Alcott



MTC-00008978

From: Michael Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please end the litigation against Microsoft--the settlement that 
has been agreed to is in the public interest.
    Michael Graham, Ph.D.
    235 Pinetree Lane
    Richland, WA 99352



MTC-00008979

From: Willis S Lemmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  9:59pm
Subject: prolonged litigation
    Prolonged litigation is a nice word for the lawyers involved. I 
doubt that it will help any taxpayers who eventually pay their fees. 
Microsoft is an innovator supplying US with benefits much too 
valuable for chastisements by ``government employees''.



MTC-00008980

From: Robert Daniel Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:00pm
Subject: MS Settlement Issue--PLEASE resolve and settle as soon as 
possible!

[[Page 25096]]

    Greetings,
    In accordance with the pending DOJ litigation matters under 
review, please be advised that I wholeheartedly feel that it is in 
the best interest of the general public, the US economy (including 
the world economy as well), and private industry also that the US 
DOJ expedite a swift and effective settlement of this current 
litigation with Microsoft as soon as possible.
    In fact, I feel that this lingering cloud that the DOJ has had 
over this matter has had one very detrimental effect on our economy, 
and should be resolved a.s.a.p.
    Your consideration of this appeal is very appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    R. Daniel Smith,
    [email protected]



MTC-00008981

From: Dennis Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:17pm
Subject: Judgement of Microsoft
    I am writing this e-mail due to a sense of duty and alarm. I 
feel it is my duty as an American and internet user to express my 
grave concern that the DOJ has given up in a battle that was needed 
to be fought to the maximum. I express my alarm that a company such 
as Microsoft could be allowed to continue to operate a damaging 
monopoly under the guise of ``just being competitive''. I will make 
two points in this comment: 1. Microsoft is a monopoly in the most 
damning sense. 2. They must be brought under control.
    Microsoft has been in a position to place their internet browser 
on every desk top computer sold with windows OS. No choice it's 
there. They have also obviously required that if a Computer 
manufacturer or reseller places Windows OS on the computer then no 
other operating system can be on that computer at the time of sale. 
I have no proof of this as in a copy of a contract but the DOJ 
should if they have done their homework. This requirement would lead 
to a breach of contract if broken and most small computer makers 
would not have the resources or energy to fight MS.
    Microsoft professes to embrace the XML open source protocol, and 
yet they embed it in HTML so that only a Microsoft browser can 
properly read it? Microsoft must be brought under control to allow 
the internet, computing in general and the world to progress as it 
should without being shackled by a proprietary system that only the 
``corporate programmers'' are allowed access to and the privilege of 
improvement. Their are other systems out there, UNIX, Linux, OS/2, 
and MacIntosh systems that are just as good but don't even stand a 
chance of competing if MS is allowed to continue with their 
practices.
    I am obviously not a lawyer nor in a computer related field, but 
I am very concerned that the U.S. will not reign in the MS Monopoly 
as has been done to other monopolies in the past. Please do not let 
the slap on the wrist , that it appears Microsoft will get, stand.
    Respectfully,
    Dennis Myers
    Citizen of the United States of America



MTC-00008982

From: Gerald Adcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interests of all concerned and the American economy this 
lawsuit should be settled now. Special interest groups AND the 
justice department have cost the American economy enough. Through 
the years Microsoft has risen from a fledgling company to a dominant 
force in our economy. This has been accomplished through good old 
American free market competition and Microsoft has put out a product 
that left the competition behind. To punish a company and long with 
it the economy and small and large investors alike is un-American.
    Jerry Adcock,
    Orange Park, FL
    Full Moon



MTC-00008983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a former Seattle resident and admirer and mother of a former 
Microsoft intern and mother in law of a Microsoft worker, I am very 
concerned about the government involvement in a successful company. 
If it is the competitors that are unhappy with the legal settlement, 
why is this not finished with?
    Competitors are always trying to get ahead of the game and are 
envious of success. The government got involved in the telephone 
company and look where they are now. Let Microsoft be innovative and 
don't ``cramp their style''.
    Julia Peterson



MTC-00008984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern, I have reviewed the planned settlement 
of the Microsoft case and find it reasonable and fair. I speak in 
favor of continuing as planned.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Jack Cortese.
    Corpus Christi, TX.



MTC-00008985

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:27pm
Subject: RE: MICROSOFT
    LEAVE THEM ALONE. GET OUT OF THEIR WAY. THIS IS AMERICA'S 
GREATEST COMPANY WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING TO IT'S BEST AND MOST 
PRODUCTIVE? SENDING A MESSAGE THAT IF YOU GET TOO GOOD WE'LL PUNISH 
YOU. IT'S ANTI-AMERICAN.
    AGAIN LEAVE THIS COMPANY ALONE! AND FOR THAT MATTER--ALL 
COMPANIES.



MTC-00008986

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not delay any more on settling this case. It is too 
costly to the economy.
    Thanks



MTC-00008987

From: Mike and Sandy Wenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I just wanted to express my satisfaction with the settlement 
that the DOJ has worked out with the Microsoft Corporation. I think 
the remedies are fair and do an equitable job of penalizing the 
company without tilting the scale too much in favor of its 
competitors. Frankly, I've been concerned that the DOJ has been 
acting too much on the behalf of Microsoft competitors, who through 
mistakes of their own, found themselves at a competitive 
disadvantage, and not the American consumer. The settlement that has 
been worked out has alleviated that concern. Now it's time to settle 
this and let these companies get back to competing.
    Sincerely yours,
    Michael C. Wenberg
    1160 Magnolia Dr.
    Walla Walla, WA 99360



MTC-00008988

From: Eric A Nordin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:51pm
Subject: United States v Microsoft
    The problem here is that a universal operating system is not 
necessarily a bad thing. Government interference in the market place 
is not necessarily a good thing either. It is not uncommon for the 
heavy hand of governmental power to actually bring about an 
undesirable outcome, though good was intended. If the Windows 
operating system is so bad, then why does the government express no 
confidence in the ability of the market place to spawn a remedy? 
Linux is an alternative to Windows and enjoys growing acceptance as 
well as ongoing development. The government also seems to ignore the 
fact that personal computers can be set up to use multiple operating 
systems. So what is the problem? The charge against Microsoft which 
characterizes the integral nature of Internet Explorer as somehow 
illegal completely fails to recognize an important fact; every time 
a browser is launched a user chooses to click on an icon. My 
computer has icons for three different internet browsers and I am 
free to select whichever one I choose. To say Microsoft has a 
monopoly because their browser cannot be removed is simply 
ridiculous.
    Another absurdity in these proceedings is that nowhere does the 
government explore the benefits consumers reap from an integral 
browser. This case is a total waste of taxpayer money and should be 
dropped altogether. It is an embarrassment to our country to have 
conducted this trial in the first place. Such a suit is yet another 
hallmark of a truly misguided and ignorant administration. The 
current administration would do well to get as much distance as 
possible from the

[[Page 25097]]

prosecution of this case. It is not something to be bragged about or 
pointed to as an example of responsible discharge of public duty.
    Eric Nordin
    17191 Langford Blvd.
    Prior Lake, MN 55372
    952-447-2785



MTC-00008989

From: Nina Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I understand that the Department of Justice is receiving 
comments from the public about the Microsoft settlement. I believe 
that the settlement, though hard on Microsoft, is more than fair to 
their opponents. Finally putting an end to this issue will be good 
for consumers like myself who greatly benefit from the creative 
design of Microsoft's products. I also believe it would be injurious 
to our national economy if legal action were to resume against 
Microsoft. Hopefully, this will not happen.
    Sincerely,
    Agatha N. Snyder
    435 Crossbeam Circle E.
    Casselberry, FL 32707
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00008990

From: Dariusz Jarzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft software user, and a citizen of this great 
country, I support the US government and Microsoft efforts to settle 
the current lawsuit to the benefit of the consumer. I strongly 
support this settlement which allows the best and most innovative 
corporations to continue to develop the best software programs as a 
result of their creativity, their consumer-oriented research and 
their willingness to contribute to develop a more efficient work 
environment.
    Darek Jarzynski
    Issaquah, WA



MTC-00008991

From: Rick Girdner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Please do whatever is necessary to end this Microsoft fiasco. 
The time and energy could well be spent in other areas.
    Thank you,
    Rick Girdner



MTC-00008992

From: Charles Coon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:09am
Subject: An End to the Microsoft Case
    It is time to end the seemingly never-ending legal actions 
against Microsoft. The initial legal action by the Department of 
Justice accelerated the technology downturn, eventually resulting in 
our current recession. The settlement in place now is more than 
adequate, and the economic recovery depends on a quick termination 
of the unjustified continuing actions by some states.
    Thanks,
    Charles Coon



MTC-00008993

From: Susan Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that anti-trust laws are constitutional. The 
government should not be involved in economics. Please repeal the 
Sherman Antitrust laws.
    Susan Sheridan



MTC-00008994

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:21am
Subject: Please Allow Microsoft to Operate Without Penalties
    Capitalist America is supposed to boost Capitalism, not destroy 
it. Many of us profit when Microsoft profits. Employees, customers, 
investors all benefit. This action should not have been taken to 
advance the competitors who instigated it. Settle it now and let 
Microsoft and its beneficiaries get on with their business.
    Pat and Fred Carlson,
    766 Calle Pecos,
    Thousand Oaks, ca 91360.
    [email protected]



MTC-00008995

From: Fabiano Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Att. To Whom it May Concern
    As many others Alternative Operational Systems that have been 
hurt by the monopolistic policies of MicroSoft. We received the 
request from the headers of various projects to manifest ourselves 
and let our minds be known, so here it is, agreeing to the last ii 
and jj to the requests being made by many users all over the world.
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if 
the following issues aren't addressed:
    *MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in 
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in 
form of a source code license or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non- Windows OSs 
can read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    *The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    *The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    *The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM 
Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.



MTC-00008996

From: Stu Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! Microsoft provides excellent product support 
at no charge, while their competitors don't even know what the term 
means. Microsoft has EARNED their position by savvy marketing, 
customer support and reasonable prices. The agreement with the DOJ 
was fair. What the states want is the destruction of Microsoft so 
that their home town losers can form a new monopoly of high priced 
products with lousy service. This is NOT in the best interest of the 
community of users!
    Stu Adler
    14914 Mayall St.
    Mission Hills, CA 91345



MTC-00008997

From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:45am
Subject: settlement
    B.Gates, et al:
    MSFT uber alles!! Don't give up the ship. The whole US is sick 
and tired of the DOJ hammering MSFT with no real objective other 
than to inflate the egos of its zealot lawyers. All the best, and 
happy new year!!
    OPHTH1, an admirer.



MTC-00008998

From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Microsoft ``Consumer'', as well as a Microsoft 
shareholder in my IRA. I am retired and a Social Security recipient. 
And I guess that this is my only opportunity to say what I think re 
the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlement. So here it is.
    If Netscape, Sun Microsystems, et al, think that they have been 
``screwed'', how about me? As I recall, Netscape joined with AOL in 
a deal that paid Netscape appx. four billion dollars. Now isn't that 
a sad story! But I had Microsoft stock in my IRA for my retirement 
days (I am now 73 years of age), and I lost 50% of my retirement 
fund within days of the time that Judge Jackson, extremely biased 
against Microsoft by anybody's standards,decided to rule that the 
company that has done more for the U.S. economy than any other in 
recent history should be split apart. My retirement funds, along 
with those of thousands of others, were lost apparently because 
Microsoft's competitors opted to pressure Congress (Orrin Hatch, for 
one) and the Department of Justice to make their businesses 
successful, rather than to achieve comparable success through their 
own brain power and effort.
    I owned my own small business and no Attorney General, lawyers 
or courts helped me. My company provided good products and good 
service. And when I installed a Microsoft system (that makes me a 
``Consumer'') I did not feel cheated. I was happy with the product I 
purchased and am still happy with the equipment I still use at home 
in my retirement years. But my retirement prospects are not nearly 
such a pretty sight due to this litigation that is going on and on 
and on and on.
    The proposed settlement appears to be a good one for all 
concerned. My

[[Page 25098]]

 congratulations to both the Department of Justice and Microsoft for 
that. But what right do those still opposing the settlement have to 
harm me further for their own selfish interests? Let them get to 
work, just as I did (on a smaller basis, of course), and make it on 
their own merits instead of sponging off of someone else's 
intelligence and hard work.
    In this time of national stress this country and all of us need 
all of the incentive our economy and our stock market can get. Our 
President is right! Our economy needs a stimulus--and it won't come 
by cow-towing to limited selfish interests by such as those refusing 
to accept the proposed settlement and vowing to pursue further 
litigation. Let's get on with what's best for our country, our 
elderly (myself and my wife included), and all others with 
retirement programs of all ages, our military men and women, and 
those who are just plain happy with their Microsoft products.
    Enough of this particular hassling and litigation. Bill and 
Melinda Gates have set an outstanding example by donating over a 
billion dollars of their personal income (undoubtedly mostly from 
Microsoft profits) to very worthy charities throughout the world. 
How rewarding it would be if some of these litigation-happy 
competitors would do likewise with even a small fraction of the big 
bucks they are contributing to big-name trial lawyers!!
    God Bless America.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    S. Ben Riva
    Bellevue, Washington .



MTC-00008999

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that Microsoft should not be broken up 
by any means. It's not the jurisdiction of our government do define 
competition as total equality. It would be punishing people who have 
worked hard to create a product that people like and buy. The 
government does not have the right to say who prospers or define 
one's earnings. Now that Explorer is free it forces Netscape to be 
original, provide the consumer with something new that Explorer does 
not allow. It forces other people to create, to strive. You do not 
punish Gates for being successful. Apple computer still has a 
wonderful product which they sell. The government suppressing 
individuals ability to create is everything the framers of our 
constitution would go against. Gates has the right to his property. 
This is the equivalent of if I owned large amounts of land so I 
could sell it at lower prices hurting real estate companies, so the 
government took my land. That says that my property is not mine, but 
rather everything I own is up to the discretion of the state to 
take. We do not live in a socialist government, and I fear that this 
decision would be another attempt for the government to define our 
lives as a collective regime to help one another. Look the 
government cannot violate ones property rights. If this decision 
goes through then that says that says the government can control 
ones property which is strait communist no doubt.
    There's no violation of the law unless Microsoft hurts the 
rights of another. The constitution says we as individuals have the 
right in the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean happiness is 
guaranteed to the individual. Neither does it mean the state has the 
right to define the level of happiness we're allowed. Please please 
please do not break up Microsoft.



MTC-00009000

From: The Talleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:52am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree with the terms of the settlement.



MTC-00009001

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:30am
Subject: Comment on proposed settlement
    Microsoft continues to misbehave. I have become aware of 
additional problems with the company that were not even addressed in 
the initial complaint. Specifically I have become employed in Korea 
and it seems that the Korean keyboards are designed to only switch 
to Korean if used under the Windows operating system. Such behavior 
is proof that the company will do anything it feels it can get away 
with while others are not looking.
    Please open your eyes to reality! Do you really want Microsoft 
software running on your systems? You'll permit them to sabotage the 
government through their own software and operating systems if you 
don't watch out! It seems also that somehow the hidden hand of 
Microsoft is at work with various sites on the web, getting them to 
switch from Real Player which is cross-platform compatible to 
Windows media player for streaming media files which require the 
user to connect through Windows, despite the fact that numerous Unix 
web browsers exist.
    You've got to force them to reveal source code to ALL who 
require it to create applications to work with Microsoft-generated 
files (WMA, AVI, etc), and not just to companies that operate for 
profit but open-source developers as well, many of whom do what they 
do in order to build up credentials to be hired as experienced 
programmers. (Or do you want to continue to inport H1-Bs?)
    Sincerely,
    Frederick L Artiss



MTC-00009002

From: Jwelsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You're wasting time and money. Microsoft has advanced 
civilization and the ``sharks'' are looking for a pay day. You're 
attempting to punish genius and reward those who refuse or can't 
recognize it.
    JWelsh
    CC:'Microsoft'



MTC-00009003

From: Linda Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please, please for the good of this country and our economy, 
let's accept the Microsoft settlement and stop further litigation. 
This should have never happened in the first place. Our economy 
needs a strong microsoft. This settlement is in the best interest of 
us all. NO MORE LITIGATION.
    THANK YOU,
    Linda Paul
    P.S. I am not even a PC user--I prefer Macs. See, we all do have 
free choice. No one twists anyone's arm to buy or use just one 
companies goods.



MTC-00009004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets settle this case as decided and move on!! Laurie Snow Hein



MTC-00009005

From: Michael Korbekian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle the Microsoft case an move on with 
business. Microsoft has been innovative in providing consumers with 
the products they desire. A few non competitive companies want to 
hold Microsoft responsible for giving consumers what they want. In 
light of the tragic events and the slowdown in the U.S. economy, its 
time to settle this case and move on to more important things.



MTC-00009006

From: scottmc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the current settlement will not go far enough. There 
needs to be made a lavel playing field where other Operating Systems 
will get a fair chance at being preloaded on PCs from the OEMs. I 
worked for Zenith Data Systems from 1989 to 1996 when they shut the 
plant down. I saw Microsoft Products being installed on almost every 
PC going through the factory. I was told that even WHEN we installed 
another OS such as Novell on servers, that Zenith was having to pay 
Microsoft a fee based on the number of PCs sold with or WITHOUT 
Microsoft software on them!! What BS! Now here is a good chance to 
make Microsoft and the OEMs out there for that matter, allow PCs to 
be preloaded with BeOS (perhaps from Palm Inc or BeUnited's group), 
Linux, Novell, or one of the many others who could step up. Gobe has 
released an office suite which is very comparable to Microsoft's 
Office product, but I fear that it won't get a chance due to 
Microsoft power to control the OEMs and the PC world in general. 
Please do something to change all this.
    Scottmc
    Scott McCreary
    2389 McBride Lane Apt 82
    Santa Rosa CA 95403



MTC-00009007

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:20am

[[Page 25099]]

Subject: TUNNEY ACT
    IT IS TIME FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP PERSECUTING MICROSOFT. WHY 
DOES THE GOVERNMENT WANT TO STOP INOVATION AND INGENUITY? BILL GATES 
AND HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE TO THE WELFARE THAN ALL OF 
CONGRESS PUT TOGETHER. THERE IS NO MONOPOLY--JUST GOOD BUSINESS DONE 
IN THE AMERICAN WAY. I RESENT HAVING MY TAX MONEY SPENT IN THIS 
MANNER. GET OFF MICROSOFT'S CASE. CONGRESS SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED 
FOR GIVING 1.6 MILLION DOLLARS TO PEOPLE IN NEW YORK WHO LOST 
SOMEONE IN THE ATTACK ON 9/11. STOP THE PERSECUTION OF MICROSOFT 
NOW. LET IT GO NO FURTHER. MARTIN L. HEALEY



MTC-00009008

From: jody yanovich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:50am
Subject: MS vs DOJ Settlement
    I beleive the settlement that you have reached with Microsoft is 
fair and the courts should accept it as the best option for all 
parties involved including the 9 state AG that are still holding 
out. There is no question that the remaining 9 state AGs are 
continuing this litagation for the best interest of Microsoft's 
competitors and not to benefit consumers. Please ask the court to 
accept your settlement as the best option for consumers like myself, 
the economy, and the company.
    Thanks



MTC-00009009

From: Bill Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:53am
Subject: Microsoft settlement 5 Bayberry Drive Amherst, NH 03031-
2513 January 2, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of 
Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, I am writing you this brief letter to urge 
you, the Justice Department, and the federal government as a whole 
to suspend any further deliberations on the Microsoft antitrust 
case, adopt the proposed settlement and lay this long suffering to 
rest. The settlement fairly addresses the major complaints of 
Microsoft's competitors. Computer manufacturers will have rights to 
configure Windows in order to promote non- Microsoft software 
programs. The company will design future Windows versions in a 
manner to make it easy for software developers to promote use of 
non-Microsoft software. These and many accommodations will surely 
open up the IT field to greater competition and innovation.
    I simply think it's time to allow Microsoft to get back to work. 
Please continue to support your department's settlement plan, and 
don't let the special interests sway you toward another round of 
selfish negotiation and opportunistic exploitation of a large 
company.
    Sincerely,
    William Dunn
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009010

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached with Microsoft, while it represents an 
unnecessary and dangerous incursion into the marketplace, is much 
more fair than the actions that could have been taken. I use 
Microsoft's products and respect that company's competence in its 
field. Therefore, my wife and I are very much in favor of the 
current settlement (the Tunney Act) and wish to see it completed and 
gotten out of the way so this company and others like it can get on 
with business.
    Thomas D. and Karen K. Gensler
    412 Sunset Bay Rd
    Hot Springs, AR 71913



MTC-00009011

From: Randy Marcoline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:08am
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement Is EGREGIOUS and GISGRACEFUL to 
the Citizens of America!!!!!!!!
    You all should hang your heads in disgrace. You are a DISGRACE 
to the justice system!!! on you!!!!!!!
    Signed,
    A Law Abiding American Businessman.



MTC-00009012

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:10am
Subject: (no subject)
    enough already.....you are hurting the economy with this ..... 
consumers are not hurt....just lousy companies that don't make 
better products.microsoft has made the computer Easier to use. 
enough already



MTC-00009013

From: Rob Judd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll keep this brief, since I'm sure you're getting lots of 
mail. Microsoft's handling of competing products has destroyed my 
business, which was developing software for BeOS (the Be Operating 
System). Be, Inc found they could no longer market their product in 
the opressive environment set up by the monolith of the industry and 
turned up its toes last year. While many of us are trying to revive 
the BeOS, our real projects fall further behind.
    If Bill Gates and his cohorts manage to weasel their way out of 
this case, I'll be very disappointed. All right, there's no point 
having power unless one can abuse it to some degree, but this has 
gone too far, too long and hurt too many. I should note that both 
myself and an associate in another electronics business have also 
been hurt by Microsoft's voracious acquisition of high-tech hardware 
companies, including those in the chip manufacturing and audio 
areas.
    Rob Judd
    Judd Electronics
    Melbourne, Australia



MTC-00009014

From: Rich Riffle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do what you can to ensure that the Microsoft litigation 
settlement continues on schedule. Now that there is an agreement in 
place, let it be finalized. Further delays won't benefit consumers 
like me.
    Thanks.
    Rich Riffle



MTC-00009015

From: Jim Hassan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the time has come to end all of the litigation. An 
end-user such as myself is not benefiting at all from this suit! The 
only winners in all of this are the lawyers who will reap millions. 
Why is the DOJ wasting our taxpayer money on something as ridiculous 
as this? All of this has absolutely no impact or benefit to end 
users! So end it now and start doing something of importance.



MTC-00009016

From: C. Gamester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The following briefly summarizes my opinions and conclusions 
concerning the Microsoft anti-trust case(s), from my perspective as 
a consumer, shareholder and patriotic American. I believe they are 
shared by many others like me. It is time to end the the legal war 
on Microsoft for the following reasons:
    1. The attack on Microsoft by the Reno/Klein DOJ was misguided 
from the start. American anti-trust laws are meant to protect 
consumers, not businesses losing in open market competition. 
Consumers benefit when business seek to ``level their competitors'' 
not when governments seek to ``level the playing-field.'' Protect 
the businesses and you get Europe.
    2. I believe the attack on Microsoft was motivated to a 
significant degree by issues of political contributions and personal 
career aspirations. Microsoft failed to lobby government entities on 
the same scale as its competitors. Some politicians collaborated 
with Microsoft's competitors, who they considered constituents. I 
believe others saw Microsoft's balance sheet as a ``giant honey 
pot'' and wanted to ``wet their beak.'' I believe some State 
Attorneys General sought to further their personal careers via the 
publicity that came with pursuing a lawsuit against Microsoft.
    3. The results to date have been profoundly damaging to the U.S. 
economy and millions of savers and investors. The financial losses 
in the retirement accounts of millions of workers and retirees, 
while incalcuable, must far, far outweigh any possible benefits to 
consumers in general. How have consumers benefited at all?
    Just stop it!
    Charles Gamester

[[Page 25100]]

    Mesa, Arizona



MTC-00009017

From: lee innocenti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am definately in favor of the settlement. It is a fair one and 
we need to get on with the business of rebuilding our economy, of 
which Microsoft is a big part.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Innocenti
    Suffern, New York



MTC-00009018

From: Bob Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TWIMC,
    It is my opinion that the Microsoft Settlement should be settled 
as proposed by the DOJ. Further litigation by special interests, 
that only weight the competitive discussions in the favor of those 
entities that have inferior products, must be stopped. Let us, the 
users of these products be the judge (in the free market) of which 
products best suit our needs and pocketbook. DO NOT PROLONG 
litigation any further and stop the stifling of innovation.
    Martin R. Olsen
    Heavy Computer User
    49 Stratford Place
    New City, NY 10956-4666



MTC-00009019

From: Albert Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom it may Concern at the US Dept. 
of Justice: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    While I think the final judgement is fair, I also think that 
this lawsuit should have NEVER been brought against Microsoft in the 
first place. Especially considering the bias of the prosecuting 
attorney and the presiding judge in the original case.
    It was quite obvious that the prosecutor was out to get 
Microsoft from the very beginning. That is not the job of a 
prosecutor. His job is to seek justice, whether criminal or civil. 
The type of justice the original prosecutor was seeking was criminal 
in HIS intent. His intent was obviously to destroy Microsoft.
    While I'm sure that something needed to be done so that 
Microsoft did not unfairly punish OEM's, I think it could have been 
worked out in a less expensive manner to U.S. Taxpayers. This 
lawsuit will ultimately cost the consumer in increased prices for 
Microsoft product to cover the expense of the trial, and to US 
taxpayers for the government's cost. As a US taxpayer, I am upset, 
angry and appalled at the U.S. Government's total disregard for my 
fiscal well being. But I guess I should be used to it by now. For at 
least 80 years, the Federal government doesn't really care about the 
individual Citizen, only the country as a whole.
    But when you diminish me, as an individual, do you not diminish 
the whole? Settle the case as is, and find different ways to attack 
my wallet. And For Your Information, I am not now, nor have I ever 
been an employee of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Albert Lowe (Out of work PC Tech)
    4400 Edgar Rd. Trlr 29
    Leslie, MI 49251
    517-589-6962



MTC-00009020

From: Lyle F Neff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to move on and put this Microsoft litigation behind 
us. The self serving States Attorney General have spent enough 
taxpayers money for their own glorification. Accept the settlement, 
end the litigation, and let us return the business of business. This 
litigation, started by the Clinton administration, has been a 
disaster to the economy of the country.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Lyle F. Neff



MTC-00009021

From: Bobby Schulman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:31am
Subject: Comment on the Settlement with Microsoft
    I have followed the government action against the Microsoft 
Corporation since it began. When the settlement was finally reached, 
I was surprised and quite pleased with the method by which the 
matter was concluded.
    This settlement which benefits school children is a wonderful 
idea. Further, I believe it's a thoughtful and very positive way to 
penalize an offender. We Americans recognize that there are very few 
priorities more important that our children's future. The penalty 
while costly to Microsoft, becomes a very rich blessing for the 
children ... wrapped inside of a valuable lesson about our laws. I 
salute those of you in the Department of Justice who helped to craft 
this settlement. Please continue your fine and creative work.
    Robert Schulman
    4425 NW 65th Ave.
    Lauderhill, FL 33319



MTC-00009022

From: M. Cassidy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: We believe the Microsoft settlement is 
fair and should not be further drawn out with more litigation by the 
Government and special interest groups at the expense of American
    Taxpayers.
    J and M Cassidy
    Marilyn Cassidy
    780 Brentwood Point
    Naples, Florida 34110-7910



MTC-00009023

From: Jerry Kreps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:53am
Subject: Internet will become Microsoft's pesonal property
    An additional comment:
    The Internet became practical when a CERN researcher developed 
the HTTP protocol and put it into the public domain. Had he patented 
it instead, the HTTP protocol would have joined the numerous other 
networking protocols that languished. The others were languishing 
because they were controlled by patents. Folks were not interested 
in paying a fee to be able to use a network that they already owned 
by virtue of the taxes they paid which allowed our government to 
develop the precursor to the internet.
    HOWEVER, THE INTERNET IS STILL NOT SAFE FROM CAPTURE by greedy 
corporations that have no repsect for the law, i.e., Microsoft. 
Protecting a protocol, so-called `intellectual property', as apposed 
to a tangible invention, with patents will absolutely kill it dead, 
as the numerous but unused networking protocols prove. A patented 
protocol gives the holder of the protocol absolute power of monopoly 
over the users/adopters of that protocol backed by the law. The 
patent holder can charge whatever he likes and can blackmail or put 
anybody using it out business if he likes--you can't reverse 
engineer it and you can't code around it. Very few companies will 
willingly choose such an option.
    It was this patenting madness, motivated by greed, which stifled 
the development of the Unix operating system, and it's desktop, the 
CDE. These events allowed a new software company, which relied 
heavily on OPEN SOURCE software made available to the public domain 
by the Regents of the University of California, to take advantage of 
the greed gridlock and develop a product called `Windows'. Even 
today, Microsoft borrows heavily from the Open Source community, 
without returning anything of value, to extend the functionality of 
its software at little expense to itself. With clever marketing, 
aided by illegal contracts and business practices, Microsoft was 
able to develop something the Unix companies couldn't, a monopoly. 
In the early days, purchasers of Windows could move their copy of 
Windows from an old machine, which they were selling or discarding, 
to their new machine. Or, if they had two machines they could use a 
single copy of Windows on both machines. Or, they could sell the PC 
and the WIndows on it, to another person. Or, they could give the PC 
and Windows to a charity. When Microsoft became secure in its 
monoply position it changed the lease to FORCE users to purchase a 
NEW copy of Windows if they bought a new machine. or purchased a 
used one.
    They forced OEM's to sell a copy of Windows with each PC they 
sold, EVEN IF THE CUSTOMER DIDN'T WANT IT, a blatent violation of 
the Sherman--Clayton Anti-Trust act, and one so obvious it is 
amazing that the DOJ never bothered to enforce the Act against 
Microsoft, but chose a lame `bundling' issue instead. HAD THE DOJ 
DONE ITS JOB the monopoly would not have existed and consumers would 
have had other Operating System options which would have allowed 
them to avoid the ``Microsoft Tax''.

[[Page 25101]]

    The only company that can benefit from software patents is one 
which already has a monopoly eg. Microsoft. In this case a protocol 
such as .Net can be forced onto users, developers and deployers by 
virtue of Microsoft's desktop monopoly, and this monopoly can be 
extended to servers and Internet by using software patents to 
exercise monopoly control over everyone who talks to any desktop, 
include Linux KDE desktops, all servers and the Internet itself. 
This is Microsoft's big plan for the future.
    This sham settlement will assure the success of Bill Gate's 
`dream', which will become our nightmare. The Internet will be 
divided into two camps, one controlled by Microsoft, and the other 
controlled by tyrannical governments. The hard part will be trying 
to tell the difference. Doubt this? Then consider that in a blatant 
attempt to control and/or manipulate the poltical climate Microsoft 
has unilaterally removed certain politically incorrect words from 
the Microsoft Office Dictionary. Or, consider that Microsoft 
released an upgrade' to Internet Explorer (their browser) which 
automatically rewrote web pages on the fly, inserting Microsoft URLs 
and ad banners, without the permission of the site creators. You are 
a third party and have a site selling a software application that 
competes with one of Microsoft's software products. When visitors 
display your website ads for Microsoft's product appear on/over your 
own product on your own site. Such is the power of a monoply. What's 
next? Releasing an `upgrade' to Microsoft Money that certain stocks 
from being be added to a portfolio? Controlling online poltical 
discussions or contents of emails?
    Communist governments control their citizens directly by decree. 
Fascist governments control the cartels which control the citizens. 
The difference is cosmetic. Your sham settlement will allow an 
uncontrolled cartel, Microsoft, to control public discouse and 
commerce on the Internet by giving ownership of the Internet to 
Microsoft, lock, stock and barrel, via its ``.NET'' protocols.
    Jerry Kreps



MTC-00009024

From: H Tavassolie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    As an American citizen I would like to settle this prolong and 
somewhat unfair litigation that has been proven of harming the 
public interest. Microsoft innovations has created enormous public 
benefit, and facilitated our life. I give you an example, I 
purchased Microsoft word, but my computer didn't have enough memory, 
after a month,I had a chance to return it, the store said ``We 
usually do not accept this late soft weir return, but because of 
Microsoft policy we will accept it''. The price was near $400.00.
    Therefore,I urge you and ask you to please settle this unfair to 
public litigation as soon as possible.
    Sincerely.



MTC-00009025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:05am
Subject: microsoft settlement-from citizen
    Issue of microsoft/government lawsuit: 01-05-02
    As a tax paying citizen I feel the time is overdue to settle the 
microsoft vs government lawsuit issue. I cannot comprehend the 
reality of the suit regarding so-called microsoft monopoly when 
monopolies of far greater caliber are being perpetrated by giant 
industries that will have a far more significant and sinister impact 
on people of the world. What about the creation of monopolies formed 
by union of various components of the medical system, pharmaceutical 
and petroleum giants and energy companies? What efforts are being 
made to control them?
    Personally, if I never had a computer I could live without it. 
My life would not be affected! But, my life is being effected right 
now, and more so in the near future by cost and availability of 
pretroleum products, energy sources and worst of all, horrific 
increase in cost of medical services and medications. These 
industries, through costly lobbying, control the political system of 
the U.S. which is not in the best interest of people like me--the 
people who pay the bills.
    Gerald Foye
    9857 Old Ridge Road
    Spring Valley, CA 91977
    [email protected]
    619-465-2094



MTC-00009026

From: Steve Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I feel that the settlement with Microsoft is a very fair one. 
There will be many individuals and companies that will write to the 
contrary but I think that there are many things influencing them 
other than what is fair. Microsoft has been a major force in our 
economy in the past and if given the chance may contribute in 
pulling us out of this down turn.
    Thank you,
    Steve Robinson
    [email protected]
    4958 Monaco Drive
    Pleasanton, CA 94566



MTC-00009027

From: Russell Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm not happy with the settlement you made with Microsoft. It 
seems like you are allowing them to do the same business practices 
that brought on the litigation in the first place. Please do not 
allow them to squash the competition the way they have in the past.
    Thanks.
    Russel Caldwell



MTC-00009028

From: Ted Leeuwesteijn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    ``I am part of a worldwide network of business that is working 
on getting the BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but 
there is no hope of success if the following issues aren't 
addressed: MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers 
interested in porting it or understanding the document formats can 
do so either in form of a source code license or an allowance to see 
it, check it and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-
Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats for flawless 
interaction with Windows users.
    The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users 
can continue to access files on non-BFS partitions. The ruling must 
include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any OEM Microsoft is 
supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an alternative operating 
system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy the damage MS has done 
to BeOS and lots of others in the past.
    Personally to my business MS has endorsed to get me to be a OEM 
dealer providing i won't sell other or at least load up other OSes 
onto my systems. So theorecly i would not be able to serve my 
clients wishes to the fullest just because MS won't allow me to. 
Well in my opinion it's up to the client to decide which services 
and tools they like to use and not the ones MS want me to upload on 
a PC. There are severall cases known about simulair issues, i name a 
few Hitachi has encountered it as wel as compaq.
    Now if i buy a car at a certen dealer, the manufacturer may 
advize in the brand and type of fuel i will be charging it but in 
the end it's certenly my choice which one to choose from as long as 
the fuel complies to their recommendations and technological specs.
    And then not to mention that they are distributing unsafe and 
unstable software and so to speak a less superior prodact than many 
others o know and have used. They knowingly abuse this so called 
features to rule the world on a certen market.
    If a car company do such a thing(GoodYear) they get the largest 
trouble at their adress but it seems that MS can get away with 
anything in that area. I like to refer to a few articles which may 
have escaped your attention and i like you to study them.
    http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
    http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22670.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/21410.html
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/21347.html
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110 and some 
information about beos
    http://www.gcn.com/vol19--no23/reviews/2637-1.html
    With the kindest regards and respect,
    Ted Leeuwesteijn

[[Page 25102]]

    managing director
    BeOS oem dealer for the Netherlands & Europe.



MTC-00009029

From: Owie Jaggi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:19am
Subject: microsoft
    If microsoft is charged then so should AOL
    I believe microsoft has been unduly charged. I have tried to use 
aol programs while subscribed to microsoft; they either would not 
work or they screwed up my MSprograms. I believe this was 
intentional on the part of aol. On the other hand MS has given away 
more free software programs to the public than any other 
provider;especialy aol. People who have a little knowledge of cp,s 
choose MS because they know it is a much better product with with 
better service; while aol has a clientel of mostly people who have 
very little or no knowledge of computers. But then it pays to 
advertise (which aol does a lot of) which MS does little of ;like on 
public tv. When aol users gain a little knowledge aboutCP,s they 
usually switch to MICROSOFT. I for one wished there was some way to 
keep aol products completley off of my CP; but for some reason aol 
seems to show up in my software every now and then and I have to 
delete it.



MTC-00009030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No further litigation is necessary. Settle the case. Settlement 
is the best thing for American consumers
    Respectfully
    An American voter and taxpayer
    C.A. Rockefeller



MTC-00009031

From: Frank Byrd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please support an expeditious close to the folly of the 
Microsoft case, which has made a mockery of the spirit and proper 
application of US anti-trust laws.
    It is harmful enough that competitors who are losing their 
battles in the free market are increasingly attempting to manipulate 
the DOJ to their advantage. Now state politicos, who have such 
obvious agendas, have made this an even more ludicrous circus. The 
DOJ serves so many noble purposes in this country. Artificially 
``managing'' our economy should not be one of them.
    Respectfully,
    Frank Byrd, CFA
    212-697-2886
    Midtown Capital Partners
    565 5th Avenue, 11th Floor
    New York, NY 10017



MTC-00009033

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:04pm
Subject: Public interest
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. THE 
ANTITRUST LAWS ARE NON-OBJECTIVE. ALL THEY'RE FOR IS GIVING ENVIOUS 
COMPETITORS TRUMPED UP GROUNDS TO GO AFTER THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST. 
IF YOU DON'T COLLABORATE WITH YOUR COMPETITION UNDER ANTI-TRUST, 
YOU'RE ``GUILTY'' OF ``CUTTHROAT COMPETITION''. IF YOU DO 
COLLABORATE WITH YOUR COMPETITION UNDER ANTI-TRUST, YOU'RE 
``GUILTY'' OF ``PRICE-FIXING''. THE ANTITRUST LAWS GET YOU COMING 
AND GOING AND ARE A FRAUD!!! REPEAL ANTITRUST!!!!!!



MTC-00009034

From: luckinh nguyen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft setlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone to do its business. The U.S.A. and 
the whole world need a leader in software business. We sure don't 
want to have to learn 100 different ways to use our computer just 
because U.S.J.D wants to have 100 strong companies.
    Without Microsoft and Intel companies, the U.S. which has been 
way behind the Japanese in the 80%, would never have a chance to go 
back to be the world leader again since the 90's. I don't understand 
why we want to weaken our own strength to give the Europeans and the 
Japaneses a new chance to get ahead (example Boeing vs Airbus in 
airplane business, and the Toyota vs Ford in car business).
    My opinion is if the U.S. government will not support Microsoft 
(or any of the industry leader), it should not constrain it either. 
The United States of America is strong and will be a strong country 
because its citizens and corporates are allowed to have the freedom 
to think and to act. GOD BLESS AMERICA FOREVER. An Immigrant from 
Vietnam Ken Nguyen e-mail address: [email protected]



MTC-00009035

From: htd1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:08pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please proceed with finalizing settlement agreed upon between 
DOJ, States and Microsoft.
    George Gundersen



MTC-00009036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I use windows-98, AOL for Internet access and the 
yahoo search engine. That combo works for me. I own a lot of tech 
stocks and like the freedom we have to get out and make the next 
``widget.'' I support the Microsoft settlement, and look forward to 
the next innovation in technology wherever it comes from.
    Let all of us get back to the business of living our lives and 
paying to many taxes.
    Christina Staib
    Carmel, CA



MTC-00009037

From: LW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe the Microsoft settlement should be finalized as 
presented to the Dept. Of Justice. The case has gone on too long, it 
is not clear to me that the company has done anything criminal, and 
it is time to end the costly litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Les Weinberg



MTC-00009038

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud all parties to the litigation for settling the 
Microsoft case. It is best for the Country, for our economy and for 
the technology sector of our economy. I am happy that the Department 
of Justice, Microsoft and the States have arrived at this 
settlement. It gives me a great deal of confidence for our economy 
in 2000 and the years beyond.
    George Staib



MTC-00009039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case has gone on far too long and needs to be 
settled soon without negatively impacting Microsoft. Breaking up the 
company is a bad idea and should not be pursued nor should 
protracted legal action. Get this behind us with a process to insure 
review and monitoring of their actions so that they don't take undue 
advantage of their past success.
    You have spent far too much of my money (tax dollars) on this 
case and I hope you go after the real bad guys.
    Sincerely,
    Russ Wood
    1211 224th PL NE
    Samammish, WA 98074
    425-868-7200



MTC-00009040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ref: Public Input
    Lets settle the issue now! It has gone on long enough, the point 
has been made and we need to move on to more critical things.
    The settlement is one of the lowest items on my personal radar 
and we have things to attend to that are so much more critical that 
I consider any further delay of this settlement to be malfeasance of 
office on the part of the DOJ.
    Signed,
    Thomas Boyer
    [email protected]



MTC-00009041

From: Joe K
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25103]]

Date: 1/6/02  12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft never had any monopoly in the market for personal 
computer. One would only believe this is they were computer 
illiterate. Being in the Information Technology business for 20 
years I saw how Microsoft made quality products for personal and 
business use. There have always been choices for which operating 
system to use, if you didn't realize this then it is very obvious 
that you made the right decision without even knowing it. Besides 
why would Microsoft create application software for a competitor's 
operating system (example Macintosh) if they wanted a monopoly? 
Weren't they actually helping this competitor by giving both 
businesses and consumers more reasons to buy Mac?
    I know that there is much more meat to this and I am being very 
brief, but I just wanted to get a sentence in without spending all 
day on this. Microsoft has done a great job throughout the years on 
bringing quality products to the consumer in a highly competitive 
market. Nobody every forced me to buy Microsoft, it was my choice. 
Give Microsoft the freedom to innovate so that we can have better 
products to work with and our children will have better tools to 
learn with.
    Thanks for Listening.
    Joe Karas



MTC-00009042

From: John Webster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer user since 1978 I want to emphasize the great good 
accomplished by Microsoft in integrating services and making high 
quality software. My family strongly supports settling this lawsuit 
quickly and fairly to allow Microsoft to focus on what they do very 
well, the production of fairly priced and extraordinarily good 
software.
    J.S. Webster, MD
    San Diego, CA



MTC-00009043

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  12:50pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The settlement appears to be a raw deal for the public and for 
the USA, but a windfall for Microsoft (and I am a Microsoft 
shareholder). Bill Gates can make billions for himself and his 
shareholders if he concentrates on it. He needs to take his lumps on 
this one and move on so he can concentrate on what is important. 
Microsoft contributed thousands if not millions in the last election 
and have probably promised much more. The Judge is not an idiot. He 
was the first Judge appointed by Pres. Reagan, is an anti-trust 
specialist and cannot be labeled a liberal. Microsoft clearly tried 
to eliminate competition and the Judge found that it was illegal. 
This settlement appears to be a ``handslap'', at best, if not a 
favor for the political support given in 2000 and that promised in 
the future.
    Robert K. Whitt
    915-686-2000



MTC-00009044

From: Robin McCain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:13pm
Subject: Present Microsoft settlement terms--OPPOSE
    I urge you to oppose the currently proposed terms of the 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust action for the following 
reasons:
    Currently, it is possible to build a perfectly usable PC with 
Linux and freeware office products for very little money--Microsoft 
sees this as the biggest threat to their chances for a total 
monopoly. If Microsoft is allowed to give ANY software to public 
schools in lieu of a cash settlement, it will most likely result in 
Microsoft soon being able to COMPLETELY DOMINATE the software market 
and result in the demise of alternative operating systems and 
software.
    Acceptance of the settlement as it is now proposed will go 
further towards the creation of a Microsoft monopoly than any other 
action their marketing department could possible take, and totally 
negates the spirit of the anti-trust action. So, I ask the U.S. 
Attorney's legal team to reject any settlement involving ``software 
products'', and to propose that the cash equivalent be given to the 
schools in the form of non-brand specific vouchers, which could also 
be used for alternative software (ie. not just for operating 
systems, office products, and the like, but the vouchers could also 
be used for learning software, consulting services, test preparation 
aids, and other software tools). This would allow the schools to be 
able to choose which brands of software they wanted to use and 
teach. ``Software products'' cost Microsoft NOTHING... All the 
distribution of these Microsoft software products would do is to 
encourage children to BUY MORE Microsoft... ...and thus increase 
Microsoft market share.
    If the schools had these non-brand specific vouchers, they could 
use them to endorse whichever software vendors they chose on an 
individual basis, which would encourage and benefit the entire 
software community, not just Microsoft--and would be much closer to 
a truly fair remedy.
    P.S. Why didn't the government seek injunctions to:
    1. delay the release of any new Microsoft operating system 
involving the technologies in question until the case had been 
resolved?
    2. deny Microsoft the ability to give away large numbers of free 
copies of their new development system tools in the academic 
environment. (This results in exactly the same problems the medical 
community has had for years with the free pharmaceutical samples 
from their manufacturers--an incentive for unfair advantage at the 
expense of the public) The current situation has simply resulted in 
a ``business as usual'' continuation of the original anti-
competitive behavior.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009045

From: eduardo chin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:14pm
Subject: TO THE US DEPT. OF JUSTICE and all States oppossed to the 
arrived TO THE US DEPT. OF JUSTICE and all States oppossed to the 
arrived settlement:
    Let the business of running a good business be left to the good 
enterprenuers of our industries. It is time to let Microsoft to get 
back to what the public wants it to provide them: good products and 
good service at prices public will want to pay for. Stop running the 
competition using the courts legal system. This country needs more 
enterprising companies that will do good for our economy and provide 
more jobs to our citizenry. Stop wasting our tax dollars and 
microsoft resources in courts.
    e.chin



MTC-00009046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a microsoft purchaser of software and as a follower of 
government actions, I strongly object to the government's actions to 
penalize Microsoft. It is past time for the government to pursue 
entities that are a danger. Microsoft is not the enemy.
    Craig Gradick
    [email protected]



MTC-00009047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you to express my disdain over the continued 
attempts to frustrate the settlement of the Microsoft case, by what 
is certainly a minority of computer users in this country, fueled by 
competitors of Microsoft and politicians who are NOT familiar with 
PC software (let alone PCs).
    I wrote many of these same words to Senator Charles Schumer of 
New York because of his anti-Microsoft involvement and obvious lack 
of knowledge on the subject of their software packages. What he was 
doing was nothing short of impeding progress. Of course, as I 
suspected would be the case, I never received a reply from his 
office.
    I am 46 years old, I have been in the business world my entire 
career, and I am proficient in the use of personal computers. My use 
of computers has developed over the years as a natural extension of 
my career (Financial Officer) as well as my personal interest in 
them.
    I have used PCs prior to Microsoft products such as Windows, 
Office, and Internet Explorer, and extensively since the Microsoft 
Windows inception. I've used Lotus, and WordPerfect (they are NOT 
Microsoft products). And without a doubt, Microsoft products are 
superior to anything else out there. As for the completely baseless 
worry that some of our politicians seem to have over the choice of 
other products, or inability to use other products that aren't built 
into Microsoft Windows--this simply shows that they do not know what 
they are talking about.
    Let me give you some analogies that should ring close to home... 
Microsoft Windows

[[Page 25104]]

(older versions OR the new XP version released last Fall) offers 
more flexibility, choice of using other products with it, etc., than 
any of the following that I use:
    1. My utilities. ANY of them.
    2. My healthcare benefits, including choice of a physician.
    3. My America Online account (a member for six years).
    4. My local and long distance telephone carrier.
    And consider this: I can add products to my PC, made by someone 
other than Microsoft, and do it easily, ONLY because Microsoft has 
brought standardization to the industry. They brought the concept of 
``Plug and Play'' to the PC world, which means: Buy someone else's 
products and Microsoft software actually assists your computer to 
make sure it works, by identifying the drivers needed and making all 
the interconnections necessary to connect it to your monitor, 
printer, scanner or other peripherals!
    Do that with any of the items listed above. Try to ``plug and 
play'' a different electricity company this month because you are 
tired of using the one you currently have. And then plug another one 
in if that one doesn't suit you after a day of using it. Or try that 
with your health plan. Or the physician you just used, and wish to 
use another one for your visit next week. Good luck trying.
    The point is, their software is theirs and in the opinion of 
most PC-literate people out there, they have already gone out of 
their way to accommodate other companies by allowing virtually any 
software to be used in conjunction with it.
    So the next argument is that even though it is possible to do, 
it might be too difficult to use another software product with it? 
Well let me tell you this...if you have just basic PC skills, it is 
not that hard to substitute another product for the ones that come 
with the Microsoft software packages. But let's just assume that it 
takes a little effort to figure out how to do it... If you had the 
option to do that with your health plan or your utilities would you 
take the time to learn how to do it? You can bet your bottom dollar 
that you would.
    Now consider this: Millions of PC-literate people out there DO 
know how to do this switch in products, but like me, they do not. 
Because they don't want to.
    That brings me back to my original comment: once you experiment 
with the other products out there, you come back to the Microsoft 
ones because they are the best. Why do you think their products are 
used by virtually everyone out there? Because they were FORCED to 
use them? Heaven knows that I have every capability of purchasing 
the Lotus/WordPerfect suite of office software for work or at home, 
but I wouldn't because I like the Microsoft Office package better. 
And I could change my browser today to be Netscape's... but I won't 
because I like the Internet Explorer.
    It is time that the politicians quit making issues where there 
aren't issues.
    The focus on trying to find problems with Microsoft should be 
left in the past with the inept administration that started it. We 
should be thankful that this country is being led today by people 
with true honor and dignity, who are bringing us together, united in 
the quest for Freedom. And that means the freedom to choose the 
Microsoft products, because they are superior to others, even if 
every single PC owner in the world does so and the Microsoft 
products become synonymous with ``Kleenex'' or ``Xerox.'' After all, 
those companies MADE the markets that they still compete in. Perhaps 
through other informed PC users out there, we can tell the Senator 
Schumers and the lawyers representing Microsoft's competitors to get 
with it and leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft has done more good for 
this country, by bringing productivity enhancements to the business 
world, and more information via PCs/PC software advancements to 
people in their homes, than most of our politicians could ever hope 
to do in their lifetime.
    Sincerely,
    Alan House
    4858 Dublin Drive
    North Royalton, OH 44133
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009048

From: Mary L. Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft--Settlement?
    Sirs:
    ANY indictment of Microsoft under such an abomination as ``The 
Anti-Trust Law'' is a criminal act, as much as imposed on colonial 
America by the British which precipatated the American Revolution. 
As there should be NO INDICTMENT, there can then be NO SETTLEMENT, 
therefore it should be a NON-ISSUE. To REPEAL ``The Anti-Trust Law'' 
is the only action to be taken at this time. Any so-called 
``Settlement'' toward Microsoft by our United States government is 
punishing the GOOD for BEING the GOOD!
    Because a business is more profitable in its field than any 
other is because it earned it. No government can call itself JUST by 
intrusing on this business! Because other businesses cry like the 
babies they are, the government should pay them NO attention. Let 
them compete as they can through their own intelligence with their 
own new ideas. NOone is telling them not to do this. ``The Anti-
Trust Law'' it's hurting consumers by inhibiting progress in 
designing BETTER products--yes, BETTER even than Microsoft. Bill 
Gates has said that he has to keep updating, inventing new products 
etc., as he knows that at any time he could be topped by someone 
else, and THAT'S the ONLY RIGHT anyone else has.
    THINK your best premises, and quit badgering those who make life 
better for each and every one of us--Microsoft competitors included!
    Mary Lou Snyder
    [email protected]



MTC-00009049

From: douglasleifeste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom U.S Goverment,
    GET OFF THE BACK OFMICROSOFT CORP. YOU HAVE DONE ENOUGH TO HURT 
ALL THE SMALL INVESTERS, AND STIFFLE FREE ENTERPRISE IN THIS FINE 
COUNTRY.
    DOUGLAS LEIFESTE
    1214 VINE AVE
    SUNNYSIDE WASH



MTC-00009050

From: hairdoc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:31pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft Computer should be accepted.
    I do now and always have felt that the DOJ's and various state 
attorneys suits against Microsoft Corp. are the result of the 
prejudiced views of elected officials from states where Microsoft's 
competition reside. This constitutes what I and everyone I speak to 
considers an injustice perpetrated against Microsoft Corp. As you 
know millions of our tax dollars have already been wasted in an 
attempt to wrongfully punish this company. I and most Americans who 
used P.C's. before the advent of Windows hold Microsoft in the 
highest regard. I am proud of it's performance in dominating it's 
field because in doing so it took us out of the realm of cryptic DOS 
code and into the future of computing. Lets face it, the driving 
force behind any great advancement has always been profit. By 
punishing Microsoft for doing exactly what any other large 
corporation or small businessman would do in it's place sends a bad 
signal to those of us who have the nerve to gamble in the high 
stakes world of business. By the way what would the trade deficit 
have been last quarter if Microsoft did not sell software worldwide?
    Please stop this nonsense and accept this settlement that is 
already much larger then the so-called (but in my mind fabricated) 
harm done to the ?public? Let this great American company thrive and 
grow.
    Thank you for considering my position.
    Stephen F. Dasaro



MTC-00009051

From: LAWRENCE SHER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is no need to prolong the litigation against the Microsoft 
Corporation. It was an ill-conceived action to begin with and sends 
the wrong message to highly innovative companies that advance 
technology and our economy and provide continued world leadership 
for the United States. The DOJ needs to be able to sort out the 
whining of Microsoft's competitors vs. real potential damage from 
one of the most successful technology innovators the country has 
seen. Let's get on with it.
    Lawrence Sher
    14028 wind mountain Rd
    Albuquerque NM 87112



MTC-00009052

From: Douglas Lipton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Gentlemen:Right now in January 2002 the last thing the American 
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy 
competitors of Microsoft and stifles

[[Page 25105]]

the enormous potential for innovation that Microsoft has always led 
the way on.
    Douglas Lipton
    [email protected]



MTC-00009053

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:16pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Enough already. Let the settlement proceed. It may not be 
perfect, but it's adequate. Close the deal and let's move on.
    Jack Dinsfriend



MTC-00009054

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the entire matter has been a witch hunt and that 
Microsoft has been unfairly targeted because it did it's job better 
than it's competition. As a consumer, I never minded that Interent 
Explorer has come loaded in all of my computers... and guess what? 
I've never used it! The governments meddling in private industry has 
cost millions and millions of dollars, and saddled Microsoft with a 
tremendous burden that will ultimately be passed on to consumers. 
How has the public interest really been served?
    The reduced liability settlement is as fair as can be expected 
after so much time and resources spent. As a citizen and consumer, I 
believe enough is enough. If Microsoft has actually commited a 
violation of anti-trust statutes, they have well paid a sufficient 
penalty. I urge all parties to this matter to act quickly to bring 
this unfortunate experience to a close.



MTC-00009055

From: mahria day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs or Madam,
    I am writing to let the judge know of my views regarding the 
Department of Justice's settlement regarding the Microsoft case. I 
have submitted several emails to various Attorney Generals regarding 
the Microsoft case. I am glad that some Attorney Generals have 
decided not to join the settlement reached between the U.S. 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. And I also concur that the 
proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goals of a proper 
remedy: halting the illegal conduct, promoting competition, and 
depriving Microsoft of its illegal gains. I am writing to let the 
judge to know of my views regarding the Department of Justice's 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mahria Day



MTC-00009056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Secretary Ashcroft:
    I firmly believe the Microsoft case should be closed without 
further hardship or penalty to Microsoft. Microsoft is only guilty 
of being an aggressive competitor and a successful business 
organization. Aggressive competition is nothing new. I face it 
everyday in my business. Aggressive competition is quite American. 
It is encouraged in schools, sports, games and, yes, in business. 
Success comes only through hard work, creativity, innovation and 
market acceptance. Market acceptance is key and the federal 
government should not punish businesses with products that are 
accepted by consumers. I am hopeful the Microsoft Settlement will 
come to a rapid disposition with no further penalty to Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Norman E. Wisler



MTC-00009057

From: B. Hanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have purchased and used every version of Microsoft Windows. I 
currently own and use Microsoft Office and several other lesser 
Microsoft programs. I have never felt that I was charged too much 
for any of these products. To the contrary, I feel I'm being charged 
far too much by the government's continued prosecution of the 
Microsoft Anti- Trust case. I never felt there was a valid case to 
begin with, but be that as it may, I now feel you have reached the a 
point of diminishing returns. Please accept the current settlement 
and stop waisting my tax money.
    BH...



MTC-00009058

From: Matthew Harding, P.E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:01 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Mr. Ascroft, thank you for your 
consideration. Matt Harding Matthew L. Harding 1428 S, Lindenwood 
Drive Olathe, Kansas 66062 January 5, 2002 Attorney General John 
Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today, to express my support for the recent 
antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. I feel the stipulations of the recent settlement are 
sufficient and that no further actions be taken against Microsoft. 
Currently, Microsoft has agreed to many stipulations some of which I 
feel to be too drastic. However, due to the fact that Microsoft 
agreed to comply is reason enough to let this matter stand where it 
is. This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations with a 
court appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to compromise much 
more than I would have if I were in their shoes. The sharing of 
codes and more software information will be given to competitors, 
thus creating more opportunities for other companies and providing 
the consumer with even more choices.
    After three long years of court battles, Microsoft and the 
Government have settled the antitrust suit. Now more than ever our 
economy needs to allow this settlement to end here. Money and other 
resources need to be spent on more important issues currently facing 
our nation. Please, let's allow Microsoft to focus on innovation, 
rather than litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Harding



MTC-00009059

From: Ronald M. North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:05pm
Subject: For years I have supported Microsoft as a user and as a 
believer in the
    For years I have supported Microsoft as a user and as a believer 
in the integrity of the private sector. After December 3rd, 2001, 
when Microsoft forced me to adopt their ``Hotmail'' and ``Passport'' 
garbage in order to get email I have been using for decades I have 
changed my outlook. This change was a disaster for me and many 
others whose Microsoft loaded computers crashed, were unable to 
access any internet service and were insulted by Microsoft's 
incompetent technicians (so incompetent they all refused to give 
their names ``for security''). I now and for a long time in the 
future urge the Justice Department to prosecute Microsoft to the 
limits and them some until they realize their responsibilties to 
their customers and to the larger good of the economy. Their 
irresponsible behavior in putting out and forcing all customers to 
adopt this disastrous ``downgrade'' in MSN service, which for me 
resulted in 3 weeks of no service, $800 to fix my crashed computer, 
a large business loss due to Microsoft management's arrogance and 
incompetence should not go unresolved. Even today I and others I 
know are unable to efficiently use non-microsoft utilities to 
conduct our business.
    Thanks.
    S Ronald M. North,
    165 Rocky Branch Road,
    Athens GA 30605.
    (706)548-2675



MTC-00009060

From: Michael O'Flaherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As an independent software developer in the software industry 
who utilizes both Microsoft software as well as software from other 
competitors of Microsoft's, I wanted to send you a message telling 
you that I feel that your handling of the Microsoft Antitrust case 
and the settlement you and your department arrived at is very good. 
I am alarmed that there are 9 states that appear to be holding out 
for a more severe punishment, and I can tell you I feel any further 
delay or change to this settlement can only hurt the economy at this 
point. The business climate is already fragile (though improving), 
and it is vital that a company such as Microsoft's be allowed to 
move on. We need stability in this field at this point--allowing 
this case to go further can only hurt this economy.
    I encourage you to end this if possible, and focus your 
attention where we really need it--the fight on terrorism (where I 
feel you are doing a superb job!)
    God bless you!

[[Page 25106]]

    Michael O'Flaherty
    eInvasion, Inc.
    8580 Deer Meadow Blvd.
    Streetsboro, OH 44241



MTC-00009061

From: William Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR,Jim Bunning,Mitch McConnel,president...
Date: 1/6/02  1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After careful review of the proposed settlement I judge it to be 
fair to all parties and especially the public.
    Bill Franklin,
    4 Westview Drive,
    Madisonville, KY 42431
    (270) 825-8719



MTC-00009062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is time to end the prosecution (persecution) of MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION. Is the next step to require MCDONALDS to sell WENDY'S 
french fries? Get real, the cost of computers has come down ... 
computer literacy is at an all time high, the computer you are 
receiving this message on probably has a MICROSOFT operating system. 
What it boils down to is that while Washington spends it's every 
waking hour figuring out how to keep things status quo-- MICROSOFT 
has become successful by giving the average citizen a tool to change 
his or her life--at a reasonable cost.
    We should be thankful for the contributions of this great 
company instead of trying to find ways to penalize them for their 
success. You owe Bill Gates and Company a big public apology for the 
harassment.
    Mike Winski
    103 Sundance Pass
    Lafayette, LA 70508



MTC-00009063

From: Joel Krist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    Please uphold the proposed settlement agreed to by the federal 
government, Microsoft, and the nine states. The proposed settlement 
is in the best interest of consumers. The states who continue to 
oppose the settlement are doing so simply to protect the interests 
of the businesses located within their borders. They are not truly 
concerned with what's in the ``public interest, as the Tunney Act 
requires. Microsoft's competitors claim that Microsoft's business 
practices have stifled innovation and reduced choices for consumers 
yet they have failed to show that consumers have been harmed. While 
it's true that the technology agendas offered by Microsoft's 
competitors face a fierce challenge, sometimes leading to their 
failure, it's important to remember that the failure of a technology 
or platform by itself does not necessarily mean consumers lose. Not 
all technologies or platforms should succeed and it is the 
marketplace and the consumer who should decide the winners and 
losers. The proposed settlement offers tough, reasonable remedies 
while at the same time it avoids destroying the freedom of 
Microsoft, and its competitors, to innovate.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Krist



MTC-00009064

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settment
    My wife, Carole G. Dorsey, and I (John W. Dorsey) would like to 
voice our support for the provisions of the Tuney Act during the 
public comment period. We feel that this setltlement is tough but 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved.



MTC-00009065

From: Jack Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft is right!
    Microsoft is wholy in the right, and the Justice Department is 
wholy in the wrong. Microsoft benefits the nation, the government 
regulations of business harm the nation. But that is not the 
justification for Microsoft's right to exercise its own judgement in 
producing and marketing its products. The justification is the same 
as for my right to live my own life by my judgement. Them that don't 
like me can leave me alone. Success in a free market legal system is 
not an act of aggression--it is a badge of honor.
    Jack Gardner
    11212 Hidden Bluff Dr.
    Austin, TX 78754



MTC-00009066

From: Edward B. Riggio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: US DOJ
    It is time to finalize the Microsoft Settlement. Lets not 
prolong this expensive Microsoft settlement any further. The actions 
agreed to by Microsoft, Justice Department and nine states including 
New York where I live, are fair and good for consumers. The other 
plaintiffs are just trying to gain a competitive edge by delaying 
the settlement. We need to get on with strengthening the economy and 
one way to do this is to finalize the Microsoft Settlement by 
February 1, 2002.
    Respectively,
    Ed Riggio
    Woodstock, NY 12498



MTC-00009067

From: Joan and Dick Hinman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle Now. Do not drag this on any longer as it should have 
never been done in the first place.
    J. Hinman



MTC-00009068

From: Michael J. Hutchinson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please approve the settlement.



MTC-00009069

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bennett Fisher
Johns Hopkins University
1/6/02
Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates is one of the greatest business leaders in the 
history of our capitalist country. He helped Microsoft gain 
monopolistic power by using great business tactics and had the power 
to use anticompetitive acts to preserve it. In United States v. 
Microsoft, remedies are needed in order to lessen Microsoft's 
control and increase competition. The remedies that the government 
proposed are solid, but still allow Microsoft to act 
anticompetitively. Noticing this lack of enforcement, Microsoft 
jumped on the government's proposal. They even offered to donate 
equipment and programs to needy schools in order to cover up their 
excitement and show some remorse. The only effective solution in 
this case is to have Microsoft license their technology to 
competitors. This will avoid further problems and make consumers 
better off.
    By producing a Windows operating system that is cheaper, more 
prevalent, and has more capabilities and potential than any other 
operating system yet developed, Microsoft was able to capture an 
incredible amount of the market share. More specifically, Microsoft 
controlled an impressive 95% of the market. The court hearings and 
proceedings stemmed not from the fact that they had this power, but 
from their actions taken in order to maintain and preserve it. More 
important than the anticompetitive acts themselves is the 
realization that this type of market structure alone produces power 
in that it creates natural barriers of entry. These natural barriers 
result from the preferences of developers to work for an operating 
system with a strong consumer base.
    It is well known that Microsoft is a monopoly and controls 
enough market power to effectively be considered one. Therefore, 
that is not an issue that needs to be discussed. The reason it is 
mentioned is that the more of the market that Microsoft controls, 
the more power they have to dictate prices or exclude competition. 
In other words, the have the ability to engage in anticompetitive 
acts in order to maintain their power. As a direct result, the 
government's main objective in proposing remedies was to lessen 
Microsoft's control over the market and allow other software makers 
to compete. More specifically, they wanted to discourage Microsoft 
from developing software that other companies had already developed 
for the Windows operating system and they wanted to stop Microsoft 
from forcing dealings through exclusionary acts. The remedies 
proposed by the government were not done so in order to knock 
Microsoft completely out of the market. With the hope of giving all 
software developers a fair chance, the government's proposal has 
good core ideas, but lacks

[[Page 25107]]

execution. One of the proposals assures that competitor 
manufacturers and software vendors remain free to offer and support 
non-Microsoft software without the fear of punishment by Microsoft. 
In other words, they can bundle Netscape and other non-associated 
explorers to the Windows operating system. By giving competitors the 
freedom to choose which software is built in, they control how the 
technology evolves. The government's proposal also states that 
Microsoft is not permitted to retaliate against software or hardware 
vendors that are developing, using, distributing, permitting, or 
supporting any software that competes with Microsoft. But, because 
of the wording in these proposals, Microsoft can bypass this. For 
example, they can retaliate against developers or vendors that are 
not competitors. In addition, what constitutes retaliation? If 
Microsoft produces a program for windows that has already been 
designed to work with windows, is that considered retaliation?
    Even the three person technical committee established to prevent 
these problems is useless here because the power is based on their 
personal interpretation of the decree. As a result, the decree does 
nothing to establish a more efficient or direct way to control 
Microsoft. It appears to almost rely on the good faith of Bill Gates 
and Microsoft; the same brilliant and cunning CEO that helped his 
company become the powerhouse in the industry and will do anything 
to ensure that it stays there.
    The government was correct in its intentions, but the language 
in which the proposal was written does nothing to alleviate 
Microsoft's grasp of market. In fact, this slap on the wrist by the 
government and the generous donations by Microsoft to needy 
education systems only help make its future more promising. The 
supposedly altruistic donations by Microsoft are in response to 
consumer class-action lawsuits. But, by donating refurbished 
equipment to poor school systems, Microsoft will enhance its 
competitive advantage in schools while doing little to meet their 
true extensive needs. Apple further argued that this would extend 
Microsoft's monopoly power, the problem that prompted the lawsuits 
in the first place.
    Because of the nature of the subject, technology, control over 
the industry has a history of changing hands. Microsoft was an 
exception. They were able to maintain their power through natural 
barriers of entry and exclusionary acts. Although they have already 
been found guilty of this and their future actions will be watched 
closely, the damage is already done. Software companies prefer to 
produce programs for an operating system like Windows that is 
already established. Gate's timing was impeccable and as a result 
Microsoft will reap the benefits far into the future. As it is 
commonplace in this industry for any one company to have the 
majority of control at any given time, why not just let Microsoft 
enjoy its time at the top? First off and most importantly, the 
actions by Microsoft made consumers worse off. Secondly, there is a 
utilitarian way to handle this situation that will make everyone 
better off. Finally, the way in which they maintained this power is 
illegal.
    Because of the government's inability to enforce the remedies, 
harsher remedies are needed in order to restore competition. A 
mandatory licensing of Microsoft's operating system technology would 
prove an ideal solution to this problem. More specifically, 
competitors such as Novel or IBM can bid and obtain a license from 
Microsoft. Using Microsoft's technology, they could add to and 
create a completely new system. For example, IBM could market 
Windows XP under their own trade name by obtaining a license and 
paying maybe 5% to Microsoft. This license fee needs to be set ahead 
of time so that there are no allegations of discriminatory actions. 
By doing this, Microsoft could remain at the top, but it now gives 
other companies a chance to survive and compete. As companies use 
Microsoft's technology they will gain support and Microsoft's market 
share will decrease. Since control over the market is directly 
related to the ability to control prices or exclude competition, 
Microsoft will not be able to engage in anticompetitive acts. As 
Microsoft's power over the market decreases, they will gain the 
additional license fee for the use of it's operating system. The 
natural barriers of entry will subside as other companies begin to 
gain popularity and consumers and producers spread out.
    This idea has a few very beneficial effects. First, it avoids a 
potential breakup by Microsoft. There is no need to break up the 
company's assets and destroy the very thing that makes Microsoft so 
unique. Although the proposed breakup of Microsoft would allow for 
more competition, a licensing agreement has the same effects without 
the disruptions. In other words, it levels the playing field without 
the costs. Second, Microsoft's software producers and engineers are 
not restricted from continuing to make new programs. Therefore, as 
Microsoft continues to develop new systems, other companies will use 
this to develop their own and both will excel. Overall, everyone is 
better off and consumers will see an increase in the quality of 
products available.
    So why is this a better idea than the one proposed by the 
government? First, it addresses and eliminates the main problem, 
Microsoft's hold on the market for all Intel-compatible PC operating 
systems. In addition, there is no vague language in which Mr. Gates 
could cleverly bypass. Finally, there is no need for a committee or 
donations or any of the other things that make this case more 
complicated than it needs to be.
    The only issue that could be brought against this idea is the 
possibility that another company could design a more productive 
operating system. Companies would then compete fiercely for that top 
spot. This is analogous to the video game industry in which every 
couple of years Nintendo, Sony, and few other major manufacturers 
release their respective systems within a couple of weeks of each 
other. This competition pushes them to produce better products and 
therefore enhances the well being of the consumers. This is exactly 
the goal of the licensing agreement with Microsoft.
    While Microsoft has already settled this case with the Justice 
Department, its problems are not over. Or are they? Microsoft is 
still under investigation by the European Commission for failing to 
disclose information to its competitors concerning operating systems 
for personal computers and servers and that it engaged in the 
discriminatory licensing of its technology. All of these problems 
would be taken care of if the government would adopt an overall 
licensing agreement. This would allow all information to be 
available for a fee and charge the same prices to everyone. As has 
been shown, the current remedies proposed for Microsoft are not 
efficient and will not end the long-standing problem. If the 
government considers the possibility of a licensing agreement they 
would realize that this is a much better solution.



MTC-00009070

From: George J Jorgenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Comments
    Dear US Justice Department,
    I do not believe the remedies reported in the news are going to 
have the slightest impact on Microsoft's predatory marketing 
practices, and subsequent illegal abuse of monopoly power. Take, for 
one small example, the case that started it all: internet browsers. 
Since the time the case started, Microsoft bundled their browser for 
free, and essentially drove all other browsers out of the market. 
They claim they have a right to do this, and that they are only 
serving consumer needs.
    But their most recent versions--including ALL browsers shipped 
with the new Windows XP--have made a significant change: they no 
longer support industry-standard third-party browser plug-ins for 
presenting specialized content, such as movies, sound, animation, 
and virtual reality. This means that third-party content providers, 
such as Real Audio, Macromedia Flash, Adobe PDF, and Apple 
QuickTime--just to name a few of the larger players--no longer 
function under Microsoft's browsers using the standard installation 
procedure. Instead, they must provide special installations that go 
through an additional layer of software--Active X--that Microsoft's 
own content provisioning software does not go through. This means 
that ordinary consumers will have to struggle needlessly to install 
third-party content provisioning software, but perhaps more 
importantly, if they do actually get through that struggle, the 
third-party plug-ins will run more slowly and with less capability 
than will Microsoft's own content provisioning software.
    This also means that some 90% of new computers sold cannot 
properly access my web site, which has Apple QuickTime content, 
whereas 90% of pre-Windows XP computers could. With this move, done 
right under your collective noses while you negotiated a cushy 
``hand slap'' settlement, Microsoft not only successfully extended 
their operating system monopoly into the internet browser market, 
but now they have extended their browser monopoly into the content 
provider marketplace! They have

[[Page 25108]]

broken the law once, and while being penalized, have broken it 
again.
    Take heed of my prediction: now that Microsoft controls content 
provisioning, content will come next. Within three years, the 
average consumer with an ``out of the box'' computer will be unable 
to view any content that Microsoft has not provided. With all due 
respect, the Ashcroft Justice Department is asleep at the wheel on 
this one. Quit meddling with ``states' rights'' Oregon and 
California, and concentrate on appropriately punishing large, multi-
national companies who are already convicted of breaking laws.
    Sincerely,
    George Jorgenson
    A Concerned Citizen



MTC-00009071

From: Bob Harkness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Please include this in public comment regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I have worked developing software for 30 years 
so I have seen monopolistic pricing at work in the information 
technology industry. From a consumer's point of view, Microsoft 
provides a good value and definitely is not practicing monopolistic 
pricing. Oracle is a good comparison because they have been one of 
the loudest complainers about Microsoft, and their database product 
is directly comparable to Microsoft's SQL Server. The total cost of 
ownership on a per seat basis is much less for the Microsoft 
product. Oracle's database caters to the mid to high-end market. 
Microsoft's SQL Server will work effectively for small to upper mid 
market applications. Consumers have been well served by the 
competition.
    On the other hand, Microsoft is an overly aggressive competitor. 
I consider some of their business practices unethical at best and 
obviously illegal is some cases. I don't want to see Microsoft run 
everyone else out of the business. But, I don't want the government 
to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Bottom line: I think 
the agreement that the federal government and Microsoft has reached 
is as good as we can expect. The sooner this is resolved the better 
it will be for the economy.
    Bob Harkness
    9221 NE 24th St.
    Bellevue, WA 98004
    425-450-9340



MTC-00009072

From: Eileen J. Palumbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:04pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    ENOUGH WITH THIS WAR ON MICROSOFT! I FEEL THIS MICROSOFT HAS 
DONE A GREAT SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND DOESN'T DESERVE THE 
TREATMENT IT IS GETTING FROM OUR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. OUR COURTS 
SHOULD NOT BE MANIPULATED BY JEALOUS COMPETITORS.
    THIS COUNTRY HAS A LOT MORE TO WORRY ABOUT AT THIS TIME. OUR 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ALL THEIR EFFORTS ON 
CATCHING AND PROSECUTING TERRORISTS INSTEAD OF TEARING APART ONE OF 
OUR MOST PRESTIGIOUS COMPANYS.
    EILEEN AND ARTHUR PALUMBO
    159 NORTH GRANT AVENUE
    COLONIA, NJ 07067



MTC-00009073

From: Sean OToole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO: US Dept of Justice.
    As a concerned citizen and tax payer I urge you to put the 
Microsoft case to rest. It may have been a nice idea for the Federal 
Government and State Governments to sue Microsoft when the economy 
was soaring and the states saw dollar signs....those days are gone. 
I understand that a few high level government officials are looking 
for private sector jobs and like to make a name for themselves while 
they have the unlimited budget of the taxpayer. If we continue to 
allow a few lawyers seek name recognition at the expense of the 
corporation we will destroy our free economy. The governments job 
should be to protect the greater public interest and allow Americans 
to pursue their own happiness. It has been made very clear in this 
case that Microsoft has not damaged the consumer or the public's 
interest. I appreciate all our government does. Americans truly are 
fortunate to live here and I am grateful for the Department of 
Justice and the people who serve there.
    In this matter I think we should let the free market solve the 
competitive issues.
    Thank you.
    SEAN OTOOLE



MTC-00009074

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not delay the implementation of the Microsoft 
settlement which is in the best interests of our economy. Also I 
urge the federal officials to use whatever efforts they can muster 
to convince the remaining rouge states to accept the settlement.
    H. Rush Spedden



MTC-00009075

From: Mary E Jouver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:39pm
Subject: We have more important issues at hand.
    Leave Microsoft the way it is and We have more important issues 
at hand. Leave Microsoft the way it is and let us get on to rebuild 
our country. Microsoft has done a tremendous job of helping to built 
the technological ability of the USA and it continues to do so.
    Mary Jouver
    17821 90th Ave E.
    Puyallup WA 98375



MTC-00009076

From: CHARYL L PEFFER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair, lets get on with improving our country 
and quiet fighting between each other, we all need to work together, 
all companys, not just Microsoft.. CHARYL PEFFER



MTC-00009077

From: SHED
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Vs. DOJ
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
    I am part of the BeOS community trying to get the BeOS 
or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope of 
success if the following issues aren't addressed:
--(a) No penalty for OEM's retailing computers with non-Microsoft 
operating systems
--(b) Possible incentives provided by Microsoft or government 
subsidies paid from the Microsoft settlement to software publishers 
(with proof to claims of damage from the unfair business practices 
used by Microsoft) developing for small or ``Alternative'' operating 
systems or the furthering of small or ``Alternative'' operating 
systems hindered by the unfair business tactics used by Microsoft
--(C) The Microsoft Software development division made to develop 
for all relevant ``Alternative'' operating systems. I.E. Games, 
Productive suits, Internet browsers & other core Microsoft services 
& software brought to the ``Alternative'' market
--(d) Specific awareness campaign for small or ``Alternative'' 
operating systems damaged by the unfair business practices used by 
Microsoft funded from monetary fines from the Microsoft vs. DOJ 
settlement As in points (b) & (d) there must be an awareness raised 
in the public eye that there are alternatives in this market & a 
message to software publishers & developers that there are other 
platforms with viable profit capabilities if they bring their 
product to market on these small or ``Alternative'' operating 
systems I thank you for your time & would greatly appreciate 
recognition for the damage done by unfair business practices used by 
Microsoft & in restoring a level playing field for growth & 
prosperity in the computer operating system & software market.
    SHED
    (BeOS community member)



MTC-00009078

From: a(u)bfrench
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:16pm
Subject: comment on MS settlement
    I think the case has gone on long enough and should be settled. 
As an ordinary average citizen and novice computer user, I have to 
wonder if this case was more about using the courts to help 
Microsoft competitors put Microsft out of business than of justice. 
If it weren't for Microsoft products designed the way they are, I 
would not be able to use a computer. Microsoft is a great American 
company which contributes to the economic health of the USA.

[[Page 25109]]

    Arlene French



MTC-00009079

From: arthur anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I feel this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am pleased to see it resolved. The settlement they 
came up with was arrived at after extensive negotiations with a 
court-appointed mediator. It hands out new rights to computer 
manufacturers to configure systems with access to various Windows 
features. It also requires Windows to make it easier to install non-
Microsoft software, and to disclose information about certain 
internal interfaces in Windows. This settlement is a step towards 
improving our economy. Thank you for making the right decision.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur W. Anderson
    30 NE Sunrise Drive
    Waukee, IA 50263
    [email protected]



MTC-00009080

From: Rhonda Christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:45pm
Subject: U.S. vs Microsoft
    As a university educator and researcher I have, over the past 
few years, been more than annoyed by the persistence of Microsoft to 
force the use of Internet Explorer. Even files that were not created 
in a browser suddenly ``become'' Explorer files when emailed to 
colleagues and will only open in Explorer. A great deal of my time 
has been wasted due to their unethical methods of forcing people to 
use their products.
    I ask that you consider the future of the use of the Internet 
which is becoming ubiquitous. We should be able to choose the 
browser we prefer to use rather than being forced to use one that 
Microsoft has selected. I teach on both the Mac and Windows 
platform. Most of my headaches come from the Windows network. If I 
have a choice, I always choose Mac. Don't take away our choices.
    Rhonda Christensen
    Rhonda W. Christensen, Ph.D.
    University of North Texas
    Email: [email protected]
    http://courseweb.tac.unt.edu/rhondac
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009081

From: Greg Heuer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:49pm
Subject: Fair Consideration of the Microsoft Offer
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    Having operated computers since the 1980s, and having 
experienced the benefits first hand, I urge you to give serious 
consideration to the self serving remedy proposed by MS, i.e. the 
wholesale distribution of MS hardware and software to our nation's 
youth. The national trade association for which I work is a prime 
example of advantages of an **open shop** approach to computer and 
office automation solutions.
    We operate BOTH MS and Macintosh platforms side-by-side without 
difficulty. This empowers our creative team to use the platform best 
suited to the task, most usually Macintosh. I strongly recommend an 
even handed and equitable remedy which serves as a REAL penalty to 
the MS way of doing business while offering the benefits of computer 
learning to our youth. The Macintosh is the computer of choice for 
the future.
    Greg Heuer, Director
    Member Services AWI
    Architectural Woodwork Institute
    PO Box 291
    Nellysford, Virginia 22958
    [email protected]
    http://www.awinet.org



MTC-00009082

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Why is it that at social gatherings that don't have employees 
from MS competitors, one never really hears people talking about how 
badly MS is screwing us? Why aren't people of computer age rioting 
in the streets as they've done at WTO meetings complaining of the 
screwing and overpricing they're suffering from MS? You hear more 
complaints about what the telephone companies are doing than what MS 
has done.
    Isn't the US a democracy? There are a few companies without the 
skills of MS who are dictating Govt. Policy towards the Tech 
Industry as well as 9 AG's from states housing MS competitors who 
are making mountains out of specs of dust. Without MS's contribution 
to the computer industry how would the Govt. and private industry 
and the Armed Forces function? Like perhaps Bolivia? If taken to a 
vote, how many people would really want govt. aid in fighting such a 
tyrant? One-tenth of a tenth of 1% the population? Is MS an angel, 
hell no! Is GE, EXXON, GM, Boeing or the Post Office? Try breaking 
them up and living without them.
    Stop this silliness and also job security for the AG's of the 
remaining Nine ``holdout'' States and settle this waste of tax 
payers dollars right now in MS's favor. Innovation has been put on 
hold and billions of dollars lost due to this law suit. Stop this 
law suit now and accept MS's settlement offers and find some other 
area to fight......like the medical industry and their competitive 
pricing policies. Big discounts to the insurance companies and none 
to the person without insurance. ( I'm thankful for the discounts 
but it doesn't add up ). This law suit is about on the same level as 
the impeachment proceedings against Clinton. They were/are both a 
joke, and I'm a Republican.
    Robin Poole
    18998 Marine View Circle
    Seattle, Washington
    aka [email protected]



MTC-00009083

From: E Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In all honesty I'm sorry this whole situation transpired to 
begin with. The leaps and bounds that Microsoft has made for the 
entire computer industry I don't believe would of happened without 
them. The windows OS changed the world.
    I believe the settlement is too severe and I hope they can still 
operate at just leap and bounds under it.
    Ellen Miller



MTC-00009084

From: ANTHONY J DURAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Prosecute and punish lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the 
law. How is it giving the Micrsoft corporation inroads into the only 
market they do not totally dominate is to be construed somehow as 
punishment? Renegotiate this JOKE of a settlement.
    It's that simple. Microsoft has, will, and plans to in the 
future continue crossing the legal limits of acceptable behavior and 
activity with respect to laws controlling business and commerce. 
Please add my names to the list of those who feel the USDOJ 
settlement is completely unsatisfactory and inadequate in relation 
to the crimes committed by Microsoft.
    Feel free to contact me about these matters and or confirm/
authenticate this e-mail.
    Yours truly,
    Anthony J. Duran
    214 e dayton
    fresno,ca 93704



MTC-00009085

From: Andrew Bachmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I'm writing in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. I have been 
watching the case over the years. As a computer consumer it has been 
sad to watch Microsoft continue to use it's influence to force 
hardware sellers to bundle their products with new computers. In 
particular, their use of the bootloader clause to force out other 
alternatives for me, such as the BeOS operating system.
    As you may or may not be aware, recently Be, Inc., has been in 
process of dissolving after selling their intellectual property to 
Palm, Inc. The constraints that Microsoft has placed on the hardware 
sellers such as Dell, Compaq, etc. made it so that I couldn't buy a 
new computer with BeOS installed. Instead I could only buy a machine 
with Windows on it.
    Now that Palm owns the BeOS there are many of us trying to 
encourage them to keep providing it and developing it. However, as 
Be, Inc., was effectively shutdown by Microsoft's tactics, it is not 
very appealing for Palm to try to continue with the BeOS under the 
present conditions. So, when I get my new machine I will not be able 
to get a new version of BeOS for it. Also because of this the 
software makers who have made software for BeOS in the past are no 
longer continuing. So I have no software choice for my operating 
system.

[[Page 25110]]

    I have heard that Microsoft is trying to make a settlement where 
they provide computers to schools. All these computers are to be 
installed with Microsoft software. It seems to me that this is not a 
penalty at all, but rather a way for Microsoft to insinuate usage of 
Microsoft into the youth. Because the students would only be exposed 
to Microsoft software they would not have knowledge of alternatives 
that might exist, and those alternatives would die away.
    I think a more appropriate remedy would be for Microsoft to pay 
reparations to Be, Inc., and Be, Inc., shareholders. Also if they 
provide computers to schools, these computers should not be 
installed with Microsoft software. They should be provided with BeOS 
or some other operating system installed. And of course they have to 
allow for computer manufacturers to provide these options to 
consumers like myself. Then when I buy a computer I can have the 
choice of another operating system, which can be more stable and 
faster than Windows. Since the beginning of this case I have been 
glad to see the Justice Department acting in the interests of the 
computing consumers. Please continue to press for a just remedy to 
Microsoft's crimes against the consumer.
    Thanks for your time.
    Andrew Bachmann



MTC-00009086

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:11pm
Subject: MS Settlement
    Let get on with our lives. I would encourage all states to 
settle their cases with Microsoft and quit spending taxpayer money 
on their own ``t more for the consumer.'' The consumer will not see 
any of the money directly anyway, so who cares. If they don't want 
to settle, take their current Microsoft OS away from them and let 
them find some other operating system instead. I don not under stand 
their thinking, whom do they think they are helping? The public or 
themselves?
    Thanks for listening.
    Carld



MTC-00009087

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel the decision regarding this settlement is fair and just. 
It is about time we move on and stop wasting taxpayers monies.
    Ilia Patlidzanov



MTC-00009088

From: Jim (038) Wanda Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Sirs:
    We are writing in support of the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft legal case. We are aware that the appellate court has 
deemed Microsoft to be a monopoly. It seems to us that if this is 
true, it is because their competitors were unable to compete in the 
marketplace as the Microsoft products were superior, so that they 
dropped out of the competition, leaving Microsoft ``only man left 
standing'', ergo, a ``monopoly''.
    It is also our understanding that a monopolist should be 
punished if it has harmed consumers. We have purchased many of 
Microsoft's software products, and have been delighted and amazed by 
the features they contain, and certainly do not feel we have been 
overcharged for any of them. We recently purchased a new computer, 
in part because we wanted to upgrade to the new Windows XP product, 
which has indeed been a major improvement over our previous Windows 
98 software.
    Rather than being prosecuted in the courts, to some considerable 
extent on the behest of their bested competitors, we feel Microsoft 
should be acclaimed for its contribution to the facilitation of the 
development of the worldwide net by developing products which by 
their wide acceptance have provided a common ``language'' for use 
between computer users, rather than a ``babel-like'' situation which 
could have evolved if many competing ``languages'' were equally 
prevalent. Perhaps Microsoft should receive a Nobel prize in some 
category. In any event, we feel Microsoft should be punished as 
little as possible.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Dahl
    Wanda K. Dahl



MTC-00009089

From: Joseph Pellitteri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:19pm
Subject: Resolve this settlement
    Resolve the Microsoft situation NOW. Four years is to long even 
for the Federal Gov. Lets get on with life.The economy needs a jump 
start.
    Talk to you later.
    Joe



MTC-00009091

From: Manfred Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:25pm
Subject: Hands Off
    I respectfully submit that the real injustice is the persecution 
of business under the Anti-trust ``laws'' that are so convoluted 
that no business man is safe from their use by any petty government 
official that has a political agenda or statist ideology.
    Hands off Microsoft! Hands off Business!
    Manfred Smith
    The Learning Community ? TLCN.org
    Maryland Home Education Assn. ? MHEA.com
    Columbia, MD 21045
    410-730-0073
    ``There is no safety for honest men except by believing all 
possible evil of evil men.''
    Edmund Burke
    Remember September 11 !



MTC-00009092

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I work in the entertainment industry as both an employer and a 
creator. I and my partners have been responsible for producing the 
Television Anthology Science Fiction series, ``The Outer Limits'' 
for seven seasons. Therefore, I have lived full time as a 
``Futurist'', creating and delivering morality tales frequently 
using technology and human nature. On both sides of the camera.
    It is quite clear to me that mankind is involved in the most 
extraordinary tsunami of change. Technology, in almost every field 
of life and commerce, is evolving faster than any individual can 
knowledgeably fathom... It is rather unnerving to consider that none 
of us can know where man is going. We can clone, compute, bio-
change, write with atoms... slow down the speed of light and soon 
assemble the very building blocks of matter to make new atomic 
forms. What does this have to do with Microsoft?
    The one unswerving guide to our survival as a specie has to be 
morality. A human compass in a vast storm of change. Only 
morality... justice, the balance of ethics above greed and power 
will navigate us through the unknown in years to come. Simply put... 
when we allow one law breaker who has assembled a massive 
technological power grip on the global market through illegal and 
immoral means to get away with a less than equal punishment. (Which, 
as a follower of computer technology, I feel the DOJ settlement 
does.) You may open Pandora's box.
    We say to those that follow in new technologies... prey on us. 
We don't have the will to stand up to you. Microsoft has 
transgressed. Make them pay the price... do not send a signal that 
mankind no longer values itself, and is fair game to any who amass 
power through technology. As they surely will in the future and the 
consequences may be far more awful.
    Very sincerely, very concerned.
    Pen Densham
    Father, Husband... Human.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009093

From: Peggy Fitzgerald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Hello--I think the Microsoft judgement was fair, and I do not 
believe it is in the best interests of the American public to spend 
more time trying this case. The landscape of the computing industry 
moves too quickly and the issues surrounding the original case are 
no longer valid.



MTC-00009094

From: Bobby Sadin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
An open letter to the Department of Justice regarding the ongoing 
Microsoft anti-trust case:
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have followed the Microsoft vs. the US Government anti-trust 
case since it's inception, and hope you will do everything in your 
power to bring it to a swift conclusion. The value of Microsoft to 
this country cannot simply be viewed as one did the steel or 
telephony industries in the past. They were local engines for growth 
in the US

[[Page 25111]]

economy. Today Microsoft, along with IBM, Intel, and a small handful 
of other technology companies, have become the centers for a 
uniquely global intellectual economy which leads the world in 
everything from personal computing, to satellite communications. 
They are the global engines of the information economy. And they are 
the envy of the world.
    Crippling any of these companies, as the DOJ, and several 
State's Attorneys Generals have tried to do on behalf of Microsoft's 
most vocal competitors, is the moral equivalent of shutting down the 
most successful US steel producer at the height of WWII. With the 
events of September 11th, a faltering economy (yes, we're in a 
recession!), and soaring unemployment in this country, the US 
Government needs to ensure the best and brightest companies are able 
to grow and flourish, not attack them.
    In the face of an uncertain future for all of us due to 
international terrorism, we need to encourage growth in our 
technology infrastructure, and our economy--which means ending the 
prosecution of what is arguably the most successful technology 
provider in the world, Microsoft.
    In a rapidly changing world where the US economy is increasingly 
challenged by Europe's and Asia's in areas like airline building, 
telephony, steel, and in growing measure, compute software, I ask 
you, members of our government--my government--to resolve the 
Microsoft case so they can back to what they do best, creating great 
software that people love to use.
    Thank you for your attention, and God Bless America!
    Sincerely,
    Robert G. Sadin
    15923 Manion Way NE
    Duvall, WA 98019



MTC-00009095

From: Aubrey Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the microsoft settlement is Fair let it stand.
    Thanks Aubrey Brewster



MTC-00009096

From: Satchmoz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success as long as microsoft continues its monopoly. Microsoft 
contually only supports their standards opting not to use any 
existing standards within the PC industry, instead they push their 
own formats as the only option on the Windows OS. They literally 
sell and inferior product compard to many other OS, but can destroy 
there competetion through sheer business power, due to the size of 
their monopoly. BeOS is just one of many casulties. IBM was hurt 
many years ago when they tried to create an operating system to 
compete with windows known as OS/2. All of their business practices 
are designed to elliminate competition. The proposed ``penalty'' on 
microsoft is nowhere near strong enough. Nor will breaking up the 
company help. Most people in the technical world i have spoken to 
agree that many things need to be done to stop the damage microsoft 
is causing to free enterprise. This includes but is not limited to:
    open Office file formats
    open Win32 APIs
    make dual-booting other OS's (such as BeOS) mandatory on OEM 
licenses.



MTC-00009097

From: Joe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am an avid Be OS* user. I have also used every version of 
Microsoft Windows starting with version 3.0. I would like to offer 
some suggestions as to what should be done with Microsoft.
    First, it is important that Microsoft be forced to release all 
of their APIs, such as DirectX, so that compatible system can be 
made that will allow Windows-based games and programs to run on 
other platforms.
    Second, I believe it would be in the best interest of everyone 
if restrictions were extended for more than 5 measly years. Five 
years will not be long enough to allow comparable competing 
operating systems to develop and reach market.
    Third, disallowing Microsoft to enter any mergers for the next 5 
to 10 years would prevent them from hiding their monopolistic nature 
behind seemingly innocent agreements.
    Finally, Microsoft must not be allowed to integrate ANY 
application with any of their operating system products. It is 
denying the consumer freedom of choice while using their computers, 
because they are unable to easily remove the integrated software. 
Also,, a point that must be made is that integrated software just 
adds more code that will add more bugs and degrade the value of the 
product, regardless of how helpfull Microsoft will put it off to be.
    In conclusion, I hope that y'all will find my suggestions 
helpfull. Being a computer technician and avid alt-OS (non MS 
operating systems) user, I feel that I should do all that I can to 
aid the legal actions against Microsoft.
    * Be OS was created by the soon-to-be defunct Be, INC. Their 
destruction is obviously at the hands of Microsoft. Be, INC had 
deals in the works with various computer makers to ship Be OS in a 
dual-boot setup with all/most/some of their machines. Microsoft's 
previous agreements with these companies forbade them from allowing 
anything other than Windows to boot the machine, meaning that not 
even a boot-menu would be allowed. *
    -Joseph D. Groover, JR
    [email protected]



MTC-00009098

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft punishment?
    Dear Sirs:
    I am a retired educator and do not feel that having Microsoft 
give copies of its software to schools is a punishment. Since they 
have been found guilty, they should suffer not profit from their 
wrongdoing. Please listen to the public before making a final 
ruling.
    Donna Yarborough
    340 N. Suber Rd.
    Greer, SC 29651
    864-877-9362



MTC-00009099

From: michael(u)14110
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:06pm
Subject: partasan mess
    A herd of lawers making a bundle of money at the expense of our 
countrys future. The Clinton era is over, lets get real folks. Back 
off, and let our businesses be successful. We don't have many left 
in this country.
    I am beyond disgust.
    Michael F Clark
    Washington State



MTC-00009100

From: Brian McDevitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I was unable to find information on the penalties, so I am 
relying on newspaper articles that I have written in the past.
    I am happy that the DOJ and Microsoft are settling the case and 
moving on. As a user, I expect easy to use and reliable software; 
software that works together. Breaking up Microsoft or imposing 
other draconian measures would just help competitors, not users.
    As part of the penalty phase, do not allow Microsoft to give out 
free or reduced cost software to the education market or any other 
market that another OS has a strong market share. I can't think of a 
penalty that would benefit Microsoft greater. Require Microsoft to 
discount upgrade products to ``current'' users, not a market that 
Apple or another company competes in nicely.
    I use a MS OS, MS applications, and am a small Microsoft 
stockholder.
    Sincerely,
    Brian T. McDevitt
    [email protected]
    1846 Bangor Lane
    Elk Grove Village, IL 60007



MTC-00009101

From: Robert Ardill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft maintaining monopoly position
    I would like to add comment to the Microsoft case . Microsoft's 
settlement proposal of free distribution of computers and software 
to schools etc, is an obvious situation of further maintaining the 
monopoly, which is the direct opposite effect to the original 
decision.
    I understand that Microsoft Corporation was found guilty at 
trial of having maintained an illegal operating system monopoly and 
of having illegally tied its

[[Page 25112]]

Internet Explorer to its monopoly operating system. When Microsoft 
appealed, the appellate court threw out the guilty verdict as 
pertains to the browser but said yes, Microsoft did in fact 
illegally maintain an operating system monopoly. (The word 
``maintain'' is critical here. It is not illegal to have an 
operating system monopoly, but it is illegal to do anything to keep 
that monopoly--to maintain it.)
    This proposed settlement, would grant Microsoft its operating 
system monopoly--indeed, contains wording such that it would no 
longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that monopoly--while 
saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make it easier for people 
to write Windows applications, but it's by no means required to do 
so. In short, the settlement is ill-advised and does not maintain 
the law at all. To truly enhance competition in the US and in the 
world markets, (that other computer operating systems marketers 
including Microsoft export to), the comments following are helpful.
    ``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, and 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 addition, I believe that maintaining the monopoly of one main 
operating system, like Microsoft,( US and worldwide) will make it 
easier for terrorist activity, rather than a diversified market of 
operating systems worldwide.
    Cheers
    Robert
    Robert Ardill



MTC-00009102

From: Tim O'Hare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Even though I reside in Australia I am deeply concerned about 
the effects of the Microsoft settlement currently taking place.
    I am concerned that our choice is been severely limited by 
Microsoft and it's anti-competitive behaviour. Two examples of this 
are the current X-Box product being sold by Microsoft and the 
current .Net proposition being put forward by Microsoft. They have 
the ability to throw massive resources at whatever stands in their 
way, as shown by when they were threatened by Netscape and the 
Navigator Browser. It is becoming clear that they will have a major 
impact in the gamming console market and if their dream comes true, 
all online commerce will be effected by .Net. I can only see this 
path developing and evolving--will we all be driving cars made by 
Microsoft in the future?
    I am not an anti-Microsoft zealot, the company has unified the 
computer industry over the last two decades and provided a means for 
many people to access a computer who could not have done so 
otherwise. I use their products everyday.
    I just wish for some regulation to provide efficient and 
stimulating competition.
    Instead of braking the company up (I think this isn't going to 
happen now?) or some other method of paring Microsoft down, my 
suggestions would be to make the external interfaces of their 
software open and allow anyone to write software which can connect 
to Microsoft software. This is analogous to a third party muffler 
manufacturer having the dimensions so that they can connect their 
muffler to a Ford engine. This way Microsoft can still make the 
Office suite and if it is still the best product available, they 
will make profits from it but if another product is better then this 
means Microsoft cannot cut them out of the market by changing the 
format of the files.
    Some of the things I would like to see be made open and 
documented are their file system, the Office suite file layout and 
API and the Win32 API.
    The other thing I see necessary is to make sure OEM's can pre-
configure computers to have a dual boot option or to load any 
operating system without significant penalty. This makes sure that 
Microsoft allows OEM's to put other operating systems on computers 
besides Windows.
    If Microsoft continues to make the best product and the one most 
closely aligned to what the user wants, then they should have 
nothing to fear.
    Regards,
    Tim O'Hare
    Software Engineer
    [email protected]
    Platypus Technology Australia Pty Ltd
    Level 4, 1 Atchison Street
    St Leonards NSW 2065
    Ph: +61 2 8436 8500
    Direct: +61 2 8436 8517
    Fax: +61 2 8436 8501
    www.platypus.net



MTC-00009103

From: jim kuska
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe the settlement that has been agreed to by a number of 
the states is what should be followed by all the states still trying 
to modify the settlement. It is time to put a stop to more 
litigation. To continue to litigate just wastes time and money fof 
all concerned parties.
    Lets put this case behind us and let us move forward.
    James J. Kuska
    1096 Randall Flat Road
    Moscow, Idaho 83843



MTC-00009104

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:20pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone already!
    Hello,
    I think its time the Government moves onto other issues of much 
greater importance. Leave Microsoft alone. Its a great company. They 
run a great business and the cost of software has never been so 
inexpensive not to mention as powerful.
    History has shown that every time the government breaks up a 
great company it falls apart. The railroads in this country are 
mess. Try to get a proposal to move freight it takes weeks and even 
longer once the freight moves. Breaking up AT&T. What a mess.
    I now get multiple phone bills and the cost has never been 
higher and in the near future, its a shame to say that there 
probably won't be an AT&T. Please don't do us anymore favors. Let 
Microsoft continue as the Microsoft it is.
    If our Justice Department needs work maybe they should be 
looking into Enron and what effect they had on manipulating the 
market and driving up prices a year ago. Also, investigate why the 
management of the company was selling their stock while being on TV 
contending the stock was undervalued.
    Microsoft is only helping and protecting the consumers and all 
their shareholder.
    Sincerely,
    D.J.F.



MTC-00009105

From: C Eguia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:18pm
Subject: Continued Microsoft violations?
    It appears that Microsoft is continuing to ignore the spirit of 
the ruling by the judicial branch.
    Isn't the Microsoft XP operating system just another rush to get 
business & private customers more dependant on MS with their 
Passport & .Net technology that is already making private 
information available to local crackers and those abroad due to the 
numerous bugs in the MS software*. Users would also be required to 
checkin with MS systematically when hardware devices are added or 
changed on a computer? (It is expected that it would also be needed 
whenever a person had to reformat their harddrive.) This continual 
interaction with the monopoly would also provide the company with 
hardware (and software) data without the user's knowledge and this 
information could be made available to advertisers for a price as 
well.
    It appears that the DOJ is providing Microsoft with the 
capability to extend it monopoly by not adding their recent inroads 
into the audio, video & photography player software market by 
including their own software in their operating system and making 
them the default players. Also, by not providing the code to 
competitors, Microsoft makes it more difficult for them to provide 
more compatible and secure software. Even with this handicap, 
competing software is typically better and more bug-proof than 
Microsoft's.
    Is Microsoft still being allowed to change the various standards 
on the internet with Internet Explorer (XML) functions so they can 
further extend their monopoly? Is MS being allowed to make their 
internet portal the default in Internet Explorer thus allowing them 
to make more money on advertising?
    I have read that the proposed ruling, as a *punishment*, allows 
Microsoft to provide their software (and their OLD hardware) to the 
schools and facilitates them to extend their monopoly in the 
educational market. Is this true? If so, doesn't that make our

[[Page 25113]]

government a party to the monopolistic practices that MS continues 
to practice? Would requiring them to provide the money for software 
(and new hardware without an operating system) to the schools be a 
better solution and punishment?
    The next thing to review is the contracts Microsoft has with PC 
vendors. I've tried to buy a computer with various companies without 
a MS operating system (OS) and they refuse to reduce the cost of the 
software from the price of the PC or to even send the PC without an 
OS. It has been rumored that MS would refund the money if the OS 
software was returned with the shrinkwrap intact but that refunds 
seldom occurred.
    Thank you, Candelario Eguia
    Palmdale, CA 93551
    Reference: ``*Microsoft's direct connection to the customer*
    Once, the software group's MSN was a news and information 
website. Now it is much more than that, writes Fiona Harvey
    Published: December 30 2001 17:54  Last Updated: 
December 30 2001 22:03



MTC-00009106

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow Microsoft the maximum opportunity to innovate new 
products without hinderance. Don't kill the goose that laid the 
golden egg for the US economy in the 1990s. Do you think we need two 
Enron's? The US government could use Microsoft's help on many 
fronts. Work together as a team. Do us (US) proud.



MTC-00009107

From: Jerry Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:29pm
Subject: i have faxed this letter to ashcroft and thurmond and to 
msft
    21 Edgewater Alley
    Isle of Palms, South Carolina 29451
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion concerning the Microsoft 
antitrust case that was recently settled with a strong and binding 
settlement. I urge you to please stop any further Federal government 
intervention beyond this settlement. There have already been 
settlements reached between various states and Microsoft, all of 
which involved mediators and a great deal of negotiation. The 
settlement forces Microsoft to document and disclose for use by its 
competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows' 
operating system products--a first in an antitrust settlement. 
Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or hardware 
developers who develop or promote software that competes with 
Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    I am retired, but have previously been involved in ``big 
business.'' I see the hardships Microsoft is facing on the side of a 
businessman and an everyday computer user. It seems to me that this 
drawn-out lawsuit has become a victim of politics and money lust. 
Microsoft has contributed much to this country, creating jobs, 
bringing technology and donating a great deal of products to schools 
and other charities.
    Don't allow our economy to drift further into recession. Please 
allow Microsoft to get back on their feet again.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Martin
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00009108

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:36pm
Subject: settlement
    as a user of microsoft products I am in agreement that the 
settlement should be approved so that we can put this episode behind 
us and go forward with normal business.
    [email protected] (R.Grubin)



MTC-00009109

From: Mahlon Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  9:51pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft settlement
    As a person who works in a school district, i resent the 
implication that Microsoft's ``volunteering'' to donate equipment 
and software to needy schools is a step toward resolving the suit 
against Microsoft. Schools are so desperate for any kind of 
technology in many cases that they would be happy to have the 
workstations and software; however, the point is slowing down a 
monster of a company's monopoly, not helping schools. The very act 
of donating the equipment and software further entrenches Microsoft 
technology in schools, as well as helping to build a future consumer 
base. It isn't too big a reach to liken this to the tobacco 
industry's shameless attempts to addict as many young people to 
cigarettes as possible.
    Not that it matters, but as a Mac user, this has gone on so long 
that I am sick of it. Big money wins every time. To say otherwise, 
unless you break this company up and force it to open source it's 
code, as the Mac has done with system X, is to ask for a monopoly to 
grow rather than to reduce it. People want a choice, rather than 
being forced to use a product that is bug prone, security weak, and 
over priced.
    Mahlon Tate
    Instructional Technology Specialist
    3150 McCart, Suite 16
    Fort Worth, TX 76110
    Office phone: 817-207-6796
    Fax: 817-922-6967
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00009110

From: Sylvia J Trepp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement for Microsoft is in the public 
interest. Please consider this in your decision. Special interests 
should not be alowed to derail the settlement and prolong the 
litigation.
    Sincerely, Sylvia Trepp
    515 Lake St. S., # 301
    Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00009111

From: Tony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Request that the lawsuit against Microsoft be ended without 
delay. In view of the facts that anti-trust law is non-objective and 
is used against business men and women in a gangster type 
environment, we request that this activity end now. We do not want 
government dictating what we can not include in our software. We 
want the free economy to decide.
    Anthony A. Nelson
    25862 Jasper Rd. Suite 43
    Barstow, CA 92311-7204
    PayPal: [email protected]



MTC-00009112

From: Paul J Denuel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:37pm
Subject: misomes
    We need to continue the direction mandated by the courts to save 
free enterprise. pjd



MTC-00009113

From: Jenny (038) Andy Firth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is good for me & the 
industry.
    Regards,
    Jenny Firth



MTC-00009114

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that it should be put to rest. This should be settled 
once and for all. I also don't think that Microsoft should be broken 
up. I am a stockholder and wish the company to remain successful in 
the years to come and I think we should be focusing on more 
important things right now; like national security.



MTC-00009115

From: RICHARD BEDOLLA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the subject matter. Let's support the general 
public by showing the true colors of our leadership. God Bless 
America.
    Richard Bedolla



MTC-00009117

From: D. Sauntry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I'm writing to express my approval for the Microsoft Settlement. 
I understand that I am within the public comment period, and I would 
like to register my view that the settlement is within the public 
interest. Microsoft has worked hard to reduce the

[[Page 25114]]

price of software. Years ago, single applications would cost 
hundreds of dollars. Windows now includes some of that functionality 
for free in the Operating System, in a way that makes it much easier 
to use. The competition, such as Oracle, Sun, and Apple, continue to 
sell competing solutions at much higher prices. They would very much 
like to see Microsoft artificially held back in order to benefit 
their ill-conceived marketing strategies.
    The settlement provides significant relief for the behavior that 
Microsoft has been found guilty. It should be approved. Any further 
action would go beyond the findings and work to significantly 
disadvantage Microsoft in the future market--and obviously advantage 
the above competitors. I fear that the end result of any further 
action will be higher prices paid by consumers.
    In short, the settlement is in the public interest.
    Thank you,
    David Sauntry



MTC-00009118

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and citizen, I strongly urge you to bring the 
Microsoft case to closure and implement the proposed settlement as 
quickly as possible. All parties have looked at the facts in 
excruciating detail, and fair minds agree that the settlement is 
reasonable. Further expenditure of time and money is pointless, and 
can only result in jockeying for position, not in better 
understanding and decision making.
    Sincerely, Curtis T. Hill



MTC-00009119

From: Jim Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ
    Please stop rewarding the few special interests in the category 
of Apple Computer, Sun, Time Warner, Oracle, (Netscape and AOL). I 
am not a fan of Microsoft but they do provide a system that can 
benefit us all and keep prices low. There are too many financial 
reasons against the issue continuing the lawsuit against Microsoft. 
I realize that many Americans have jobs with MSFT and they cannot be 
laid off in this economic time. Also may I mention THE HUGE 
INTERNATIONAL TRADE that MSFT does in other countries--that would be 
lost and therefore the balance of trade would further go away from 
OUR favor.
    Stop helping our enemies. No NAPHTHA (that benefits Cuba) No DOJ 
suit (that helps lose jobs that are needed now. STOP special 
interest--if they have a BETTER PRODUCT line than MSFT let them show 
it and sell it--the market always drifts to the best product.



MTC-00009120

From: Julie Casso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:41pm
Subject: DOJ/Microsoft Settlement
    As taxpayer in Great Falls, Virginia, I would like to forward 
some comments about the Microsoft settlement that your Department is 
now working on. My view is the case needs to be promptly settled. 
The U.S. government taking on a major successful company and an 
economic engine of the past decade did little but send technology 
stocks into a fearful spiral downward. Laissez Faire is the approach 
the government should take, unless their is a true monopoly (i.e. no 
other companies providing the product or service), which does not 
exist in this case. My opinion: settle the case and spend the time 
on issues with more merit.
    Sincerely submitted,
    Julie Casso



MTC-00009121

From: mtman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is this families opinion that this entire fiasco is out of 
line. It is to the great detriment to even remotely consider any 
further action other than the basic settlement. MS is the industry 
standard and those companies like AOL are a pack of cry babies that 
can not or do not wish to compete. We feel that Microsoft has given 
us the very best product that our money can buy. We implore the 
department to settle right now and end this nonsense!
    Mr. & Mrs. Richard F. Hill



MTC-00009122

From: Jeffery Budzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I am a member of the BeOS Operating System community. This 
Operating System can very well survive in the computer market place, 
if we, as users of a global computer network enviroment, can have a 
mandatory dual-boot option, along with open file formats that 
Microsoft has been controlling.
    Thank you,
    Jeff Budzynski



MTC-00009123

From: Joseph Roni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    We understand that a few special interest groups are attempting 
to use this review period to derail the settlement of the Microsoft 
case and to prolong the litigation even in the midst of these 
uncertain economic times. As a private citizen my wife and I object 
to continuing this litigation. The last thing the American economy 
needs is more litigation which benefits only a few wealthy 
competitors who cannot compete with their own innovation.
    Please don't let these special interest groups defeat the public 
interest.
    My wife and I are retired and our invested retirement worth has 
declined significantly since this litigation was initiated and it 
seemed to us that it was one of the leading causes for the rapid 
decline of the NASDAQ stocks and the stock market in general.
    Let's settle this thing now for the good of the consumer, the 
industry and the American economy.
    Regards,
    Joseph and Virginia Roni
    Federal Way, Washington



MTC-00009124

From: george kajda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle with Microsoft. It's in the public best interest.
    george kajda
    707 westwood north dr.
    magnolia, tx 77354



MTC-00009125

From: Scott Barton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone! The whole antitrust trial is nothing more 
than the ``losers'' in the market using legal tactics instead of 
innovation, and does NOTHING to help consumers. How can the 
inclusion of a free Web browser be harmful to consumers? After all, 
they're free to replace it should they decide to.
    I see all of this as a waste of my taxes, and I strongly resent 
it. There should be no settlement at all, but if there has to be one 
then let it be the current one proposed to by the DOJ and agreed to 
by Microsoft. Let's get on with it... I haven't been harmed at all. 
If not for Microsoft, I doubt that personal computing would be 
nearly affordable as it is today.
    Scott Barton
    Redmond, Washington.



MTC-00009126

From: Mike McCune
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02  11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I've waited until late so that I can fully digest and understand 
the settlement. I work in the computer field, so getting a 
settlement that allows competition without harming the computer 
industry is very important to me. I won't rehash the current 
settlement proposal since that has been done endlessly by now. I 
will only say that it has so many exceptions and exclusions that is 
would be unenforceable. We must not make the same mistake we made 
with the 1995 consent decree. The final settlement must be both 
simple and enforceable.
    There only needs to be two simple conditions that need to be 
enforced:
    1) Microsoft must give everyone full and timely access to all 
interfaces, data formats, protocols and APIs. Full and timely is 
defined by the oversite committee, not Microsoft.
    2) Microsoft must give the exact same licensing terms to all 
customers. It must also disclose the terms publically. This will 
prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly to reward or punish 
customers and vendors. There must be real and enforceable punishment 
if Microsoft breaks these terms. If they break the first condition, 
let everyone have access the the offending programs

[[Page 25115]]

source code. That would allows others to figure out the interfaces, 
data formats, protocols and APIs for themselves. Breaking the second 
condition would result in a fine. The fine would need to be big 
enough to be a deterant. Microsoft has a large cash reserve and it 
the fine it too small, they may decide to pay rather than obey.
    Please let me know how I can view all the public comments and 
how I can find out the final terms of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mike McCune
    Chicago, Illinois



MTC-00009128

From: Michael S. Scherotter
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to voice my concern with proposed remidies to the 
Microsoft antitrust decision. One of the ways in which Microsoft has 
prevented other OS companies from establishing any marketshare is by 
prohibiting multi-boot configurations on OEM machines. Companies 
like HP, Compaq, Sony, Micron, or any other manufacturer cannot 
install a Microsoft OS along with a non-Microsoft OS because it will 
void their contract with Microsoft. A user must installing a boot 
loader which will allow other operating systems to boot instead of 
their Microsoft OS. BeOS and Linux are operating systems that 
requires a user-installed boot loader. One of the reasons that they 
cannot compete successfully with Microsoft is that the hardware 
manufacturer cannot install the boot loader and the alternative 
operating systems even if the user is willing to pay for it.
    These alternative operating systems provide a market that is not 
being addressed by Microsoft:
    BeOS is a robust multimedia platform
    Linux is an open-source platform
    As a remedy for Microsoft's antitrust behavior, I suggest that 
Microsoft should not be allowed to make any contracts prohibiting 
alternative boot loaders and operating systems installed by OEMs. In 
addition I suggest that the settlement prohibit Microsoft to make 
agreements with hardware manufacturers that insures that hardware 
will only work on Microsoft Operating Systems.
    Michael S. Scherotter
    [email protected]
    407 Scenic Avenue
    San Anselmo, CA 94960



MTC-00009129

From: Mike Zadar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madams and Sirs,
    I have used the Be Operating System (BeOS) for several years now 
and am abhorred by my government. BeOS users and the general public 
have struggled for years and every step of the way for an 
alternative to Microsoft.
    Their monopoly has been unhealthy to computer industry and to 
technology in general. BeOS is an innovative robust operating system 
squelched by Microsoft through their exclusive boot loader 
agreements with all the large computer manufacturers. Why my 
government has allowed this monopolist tactic to continue is a 
disgrace.
    Microsoft record speaks volumes, and now BeOS was forced to sell 
all it's assets to Palm to pay it creditors. Is this truly in the 
best interest of the American Public. Should our government allow 
another JP Morgan or is Mr. Gates made another back room deal with 
the Department of Justice?
    Be Inc. and all the user of BeOS deserve justice. I have read 
the Settlement agreement from beginning to end, it an insult and a 
travesty. I don't want my children to learn about computers through 
the eyes of Mr. Gates and his twisted Windows. It make me sick to 
think our government agreed to that nonsense. Please reconsider the 
best interest of the American Public, Microsoft is clearly not in 
the picture. The computer industry needs access to or open Office 
file formats, Win32 APIs, and make dual-boot options mandatory.
    If not for this generation think of our kids, please.
    Respectfully,



MTC-00009130

From: Ethan P. Wieting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft
    I believe that what has been accomplished is fair and equitable. 
The only people standing for futher ligiation are Microsoft's 
competetors.
    Ethan P Wieting



MTC-00009131

From: Jim Sexton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is time to move on!!! It is a very good thing to have this 
settlement behind us, well almost. Let us not loose sight of the 
fact that if there had not been a Microsoft to set the technology 
standards in this country, we would not be the leader in technology 
for the world. Technology people always think their mousetrap is 
better than the other guy's. Well, so what, if Microsoft had not 
forced the standards that exist today, we wouldn't be able to buy a 
computer for $900 that is more powerful than Big Blue's mainframes 
in the 80's. Think about it, would be able to do the thinks we take 
for granted today, without the PC. We should just standup and thank 
Microsoft for being a company in the United States of America and 
not somewhere overseas.
    A very pleased consumer. Let's tell all the whiners to shut up 
and get to work. If they don't like what Microsoft has done for the 
consumer, why don't they invent a better mousetrap that I will buy, 
instead of Microsoft's. So far, they haven't done anything but whine 
and cry.
    Jim Sexton



MTC-00009132

From: Dan D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get on with this settlement, any more legal action is going 
to benefit very few people, and certainly not the majority of the 
American people.
    Thanks for listening to me.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Darling



MTC-00009133

From: Mike Inman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support settling this case.
    Microsoft has been on its heels for too long. It is hurting the 
whole tech sector of our economy.



MTC-00009134

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I seldom become involved in matters that do not directly affect 
me, but believe this antitrust case deserves me to do so. Let's 
settle and get this issue put to bed. The case should never have 
reached this point, so now that a settlement has been agreed upon, 
let's get it done. Don't let a few states or competitors located 
within those states drag this case before more courts.
    Thanks.
    Richard K. Leichner
    1377 Loch Haven Drive
    Hayden Lake, Idaho 83835



MTC-00009135

From: Jane BrightPreffered Customer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:44am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    GET OFF OF MICROSOFTS BACK
    KEITH & JANE BRIGHT



MTC-00009136

From: darenw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am aware that the DOJ is seeking input from the public 
regarding the Microsoft Settlement. About two months ago I bought a 
new notebook computer. It came with Windows XP. I asked the salesman 
if it could run BeOS or Linux, which I strongly prefer. Especially, 
I asked him if the manufacturer's or retailer's warranties and 
service plans would remain in full force, or if changing operating 
systems would void part or all of these warranties. I had the 
impression that the salesman didn't know anything about these 
``alternative'' operating systems, or what effect they'd have on the 
warranties offered.
    I bought the machine anyway, because I did my homework already, 
and knew it could run Linux. Luckily, it also runs BeOS just fine as 
long as one special setting is made upon bootup. It runs faster than 
similar computers that have Windows XP loaded, and is very close in 
speed to Linux, given the same hardware.

[[Page 25116]]

    Everywhere I go, everyone know about windows, and everyone 
complains about windows. The few people who are not technical 
experts and have seen BeOS like it, and wonder why it isn't better 
known. The fact the Be Inc. has closed does not reduce my preference 
for it, or slow down the production of software from those who also 
prefer it.
    What I'd like to see as a result of the Microsoft Settlement is 
that I can walk into a retailer that carries computers, and see BeOS 
running demo software, or to walk into a cyber-cafe and see that 
their computers are running Linux or FreeBSD to offer web surfing 
and other services. People should no longer think Computer = Windows 
= unreliable, but know that there are choices and be free from the 
effects of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) planted in the public 
forum by Microsoft and its allies. Also, no manufacturer, VAR or 
retailer should feel any pressure to offer only Windows, or have any 
constraints however indirect from Microsoft, as to what operating 
system may be pre -installed or user-installed.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Daren Scot Wilson
    [email protected]
    (970) 226-2276



MTC-00009137

From: Joy muzhuthettu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:52am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Justice Dept. must take initiative to resolve the Case 
immediately.The Dept. must go with the majority of the States 
decision. Not with the 9 states vested interests.
    The majority of the American consumers want to settle the 
problem .This is good for the ecconomy.It is more effective than 
further interest rates cuts.
    Joy
    A U.S.citizen.



MTC-00009138

From: Steve Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:50am
Subject: Public Comment
    I have watched Microsoft for years and they are anticompetitive 
and monopolistic. Unregulated capitalism is not always in the public 
interest. The proposed remedy is insufficient.
    Steve Barnes
    75682 Wicks Road
    Dorena, OR 97434



MTC-00009139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I believe that it's in the best interest of American consumers 
(and indeed of the US economy) for the DOJ to quickly resolve it's 
issues with Microsoft. I think that there never really was a case 
against Microsoft that warranted any kind of major penalties.
    Thank you.
    Larry Delaney
    Consumer and small business owner



MTC-00009140

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer, I urge you to speedily conclude this case so 
Microsoft can move forward and apply their resources to technology. 
I would rather see my taxpayer $ spent on more productive pursuits.
    Amy Liu



MTC-00009141

From: Krishna Murty M S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Respected Sir/Madam,
    I sincere feel that the row between DOJ and Microsoft has taken 
a long time. In this mean time, MS (Microsoft) has undergone 
enormous strain both from the industry and internally. They have 
applied themselves for what ever they have promised for. They will 
do the same with the sanctions or settlement terms mentioned by the 
DOJ and 9 states. I wish the court respects the settlement and puts 
an end to this rather long and tiresome battle of MS and DOJ. I 
would also request the concerned to take initiative into persuading/
obliging the 9 other states into respecting the settlement.
    This legal battle against the so-called monopoly has long taken 
the shape of grudge and vengence. With due respect to the concerns 
of everyone involved, I firmly believe that MS is in its grounds 
when it does not give its source code to public. I wish to state an 
analogy. Though you respect your neighbours and are very friendly 
with them, you do not end up giving lock and keys of your house to 
them. Unless of course you are absolutely confident of their 
friendship. Now, appling the same analogy, any of the self 
proclaimed sufferers of the monopolistic behaviour of MS are far 
from being friendly. I wouldnt give my keys to any of them. 
Microsoft respects the legal verdict and the jurisdiction and has 
taken/started to take steps in doing so. I only wish the legal 
battle ends here. Its good for the concerned parties and good for 
American and world economy.
    Regards,
    Krishna Murty M S
    India.



MTC-00009142

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Representative:
    I am writing to voice my support to the settlement of the 
litigation against Microsoft. The software industry (despite the 
allegations against Microsoft) is amongst the most fluid and 
competitive in the world. The application of dated antitrust law to 
this competitive marketplace is a dangerous government intervention 
into a functioning market.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Albert
    Partner, Grant Thornton, LLP
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00009143

From: Victor Lengquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues as these aren't addressed: open 
Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory, 
etc...''



MTC-00009144

From: Joseph Boykin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a citizen of Massachusetts and the United States 
of America in regards to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. A 
number of states have already decided not to join the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I 
believe theirs is a wise move as the proposed settlement is grossly 
unfair to the American public.
    As a ``computer professional'' I am very familiar with the 
industry and Microsoft and firmly believe that the proposed 
settlement is unfair to numerous corporations that have attempted to 
develop competing products, consumers who have used or even those 
that have *not* used Microsoft products. The settlement does nothing 
to stop these actions and worse, give Microsoft a wedge to drive 
itself into the one market, education, that it has been unsuccessful 
at winning against Apple Computer.
    I hope that a more fair and equitable agreement can be reached 
in regards to this matter. I urge you to reconsider this settlement 
proposal.
    Yours truly,
    Joseph Boykin
    7 Hampton Road
    Natick, MA 01760



MTC-00009145

From: Chuck Donovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    As a longtime computer user and as a consumer of Microsoft and 
other computer software products I ask that you stop all action 
against Microsoft and allow them to get back to work unimpeded by 
the government.
    Charles E. Donovan



MTC-00009146

From: Bill Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:25am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    An example of the current 'problem' of Microsoft's monopoly in 
the OS and office productivity software markets is 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

[[Page 25117]]

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 number of such programs, I 
can 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.
    Bill Fisk, Ph.D., Professor
    Educational Foundations Coordinator
    Co-Director of PT3 Project Jericho
    http://itcenter2.clemson.edu/jericho
    404-B Tillman Hall
    Clemson University
    Clemson, SC 29634-0715
    864-656-5119 (fax 864-656-1322)



MTC-00009147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:35am
Subject: (no subject)
    I feel that a fair settlement should be reached within a 
justifyable period and avoid the prolongation by further litigation 
which hampers an actrive productive pace.



MTC-00009148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:37am
Subject: (no subject)
    To whom it may concern, re: Microsoft Settlement Please accept 
Microsofts terms and conclude this case. We should have used our 
resources to pursue the foreign countries that pirate our software, 
games, music, movies and technology in general. We are fortunate 
that MS has not relocated his business to another country as I would 
have done if I were
    Mr. Gates.
    We have lost our manufacturing sector. Protect the ``information 
society'' assets we have left. We should have allocated our E 
Business and personal computer technologies worldwide as OPEC does 
oil. Dale Flanigan 440-975-1111



MTC-00009149

From: Raymond Deschenes
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This whole thing has dragged on long enough. I am sure it had 
substantial impact on the whole stock market last year. The proposed 
settlement seems more than fair to me. I think Microsoft has bent 
over backward on this. Let them get back to business, PLEASE!
    Ray Deschenes
    Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc.
    1201 N. Market Street--Suite 2300
    Wilmington, DE 19801
    (302) 573-3570



MTC-00009150

From: howardnancy Adelman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft ``Offenses''
    Microsoft may have a ``monopoly'' on their DOS, but I do not at 
all feel that they have exerted this ``monopoly'' to the detriment 
of consumers by high prices and other ``crimes'' they are accused 
of. Rather, they have brought standardization and fair prices for 
excellent software. I feel that the lawsuit against them is bogus 
and brought on by their competitors (some monopoly!) who cannot 
compete against them in the marketplace.
    Howard Adelman, M.D.



MTC-00009151

From: Kurt Grimm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make a settlement now. Put this to rest. Get on with life.
    /*Kurt Hermann Grimm
    /*Systems Analyst II
    /*Yale University, School of Medicine
    /*Pathology--BB50
    /*T:203.785.5154
    /*P:203.766.9687
    /*F:203.785.2403
    /*e:[email protected]



MTC-00009152

From: Bill Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement!
    Greetings Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    There comes a time at least once in everyone's life when a 
monumental decision is thrust upon them. A ``moment of truth,'' if 
you will. A decision between right and wrong ... truth and justice 
or dishonesty and injustice. You, Judge, have the burden of such a 
decision right now. I can only imagine what it must be like to have 
your ``moment of truth'' involve so many economic, political, 
technological and human implications. I pray that you make the wise 
and honorable decision that all ethical business people hope you 
will make: That is, to reject the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) that 
Microsoft is so eagerly and greedily seeking and do what you can to 
force the right remedies to be exacted upon Microsoft, so as to 
level the playing field.
    Having written columns for major technology, business and 
investment magazines for the last two years, while appearing on CNN, 
SKY News, PBS and Bloomberg TV, I speak with a tad more authority 
than most casual observers. Microsoft violated, and continues to 
violate, every reasonable and ethical business value and concept ... 
there is literally nothing to which they will not stoop. A few 
examples:
    **It is pretty well known that Microsoft's internal strategy has 
always been the ``Three E's.'' One might hope that this scheme is 
some warm and fuzzy, people-oriented plan for business success, 
perhaps Ethics, Empathy and Employees ... and one would be dead 
wrong! The three E's stand for: Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. The 
way Microsoft has employed this devious strategy time and time again 
is: First, Microsoft embraces a much smaller competitor in whose 
technology they see some potential, or threat to one of their myriad 
of businesses; second, Microsoft extends the competing technology to 
work best with their Window proprietary platform; and, finally, 
Microsoft extinguishes the competitor. This is precisely the 
sequence of events Microsoft used against Netscape a few years ago. 
Just ask Jim Barksdale. In my estimation, there is absolutely no 
place in business for this kind of evil intention or dastardly 
operational scheming.
    **I personally know tech CEOs who have received the now infamous 
phone nastigrams from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. During these 
calls, Ballmer threatens the CEO's business, employees, income and 
subsequently, families, if they won't do whatever it is in 
particular that he wants them to do. The only parallel I can draw 
between this kind of behavior is one of how organized crime operates 
when they try to enter an industry through threats, extortion and 
protection rackets. I hope Rudy Guliani becomes the US Attorney 
General someday, as he knows how to prosecute these types of 
criminals very effectively and he would find it amazingly easy, I 
believe, to bring Ballmer, et. al. up on serious RICO charges.
    **The ways that Microsoft deals with its partners is nefarious. 
Only interested in the benefit any particular relationship brings to 
themselves, they have made a consistent habit of pressuring smaller 
partners, who of course want to work closely with Microsoft, into 
unreasonable concessions, ill advised contributions and poor 
decisions with regard to affording Microsoft an unfair competitive 
advantage. If you dig a bit, you will find that even Microsoft's 
closest henchmen such as Compaq, Dell and others, internally despise 
Microsoft and wish for it to get its comeuppance.
    **Microsoft has gotten a lot of mileage out of the fallacious 
claim that they are innovators of technology, or that in some silly 
way they stimulate innovation and competition in the marketplace. 
This could not be further from the truth. From the very inception of 
Microsoft, where Bill Gates paid $80,000 to a small Washington state 
software company to obtain what would eventually become the MS-DOS, 
or Windows operating system and allow Microsoft to completely and 
unfairly dominate the software business, Microsoft has not innovated 
much of anything. Let's see, they bought their monopoly from the 
company who innovated the operating system, stole the ``look and 
feel'' from Apple Computer and forced it down the throats of IBM and 
virtually every other computer OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) 
and that of business, consumer and personal users worldwide. Nice. 
Nice way to build a business. Then, they either stole or bought 
virtually every application they then used to bludgeon other 
software and application developers into oblivion. Ask any non-
Microsoft software or application developer (this should be easy, as 
the vast majority of these technology people are not employed by 
Microsoft, and hence are anti-Microsoft), whether their innovative 
work has been slowed, hampered or stymied

[[Page 25118]]

by Microsoft in one way or another, and the answer will always be 
``yes.''
    The sheer temerity that it takes for Microsoft to claim that 
somehow innovation in technology will suffer if they are held 
accountable for their crimes is absurd and astonishing. Fact is, I 
cannot think of, and Microsoft cannot with a straight face proffer 
anything of real substance that it has directly and completely 
invented. Innovation, would not as Microsoft says, suffer, but 
explode with unleashed energy which until then was suppressed by 
Microsoft's total domination of the software industry along with 
their unfair and anti-competitive business practices.
    In summation, as I aggressively stated in a CNN interview some 
five years ago, ``Microsoft undeniably violates every anti-trust law 
every written. There can be no argument made that Microsoft should 
be left intact and allowed to bully, harass and control other 
software and technology companies, given the US Supreme Court's 
decisions to break up Standard Oil in 1911, severely limit IBM in 
1954 and break up AT&T in 1973. It is just not possible. Microsoft 
dominates their business sector to a greater extent than John D. 
Rockefeller or AT&T ever did. If the US government saw fit to split 
these businesses, then Microsoft should receive this treatment and 
more. More aggressive penalties will have to be created so that the 
damaged parties can be recompensed, so that future competition and 
innovation will be secured and so that Gates and Ballmer will never 
again resort to these kinds of business operations which even 
Machievelli would have found distasteful.'' Please make the right 
decision, Judge ... during this, your ``moment of truth.'' God Bless 
America!
    All the Best, Bill
    William R. Robinson
    Chief Marketing Strategist
    Relentless Marketing
    ``Relentlessly Getting Results''
    UK Tel.: +44 (0) 1608 664-200 Fax: 664-400
    UK cell phone: +44 (0) 7970 479-130
    Toll-free U.S. voice-mail: +1 877 763-1200
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    On the Web: www.relentlessmarketing.com
    *Columnist for Upside Magazine (www.upside.com), Marketing 
Magazine
    (www.marketing.haymarket.com), Business 2.0 (www.business2.com),
    Fortune Small Business (www.fsb.com), Cisco System's iQ Magazine
    (www.cisco.com), Tornado-Insider (www.tornado-insider.com) and
    United Airline's Hemispheres Magazine 
(www.hemispheresmagazine.com)



MTC-00009153

From: Richard M. Salsman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:12am
Subject: Drop the case
    My ``public comment:''
    The case against Microsoft should be dropped, because it's an 
assault on the firm's property rights. Indeed, the antitrust laws 
themselves should be abolished, as an unjust taking under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    For more, see attached.
    Richard M. Salsman, CFA
    President & Chief Market Strategist
    InterMarket Forecasting, Inc.
    162 Sidney Street
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    Phone: 617-252-3483
    Fax: 617-252-7461
    Web site: www.intermarketforecasting.com
    InterMarket Forecasting, Inc. is an investment research and 
forecasting firm that quantifies market price indicators to guide 
the asset allocation decisions and trading strategies of pension 
plans, asset managers, financial institutions and hedge funds.



MTC-00009154

From: Josh Sparks
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I would like to briefly express my opinion in favoring an end to 
the litigation against Microsoft and in having a settlement finally 
reached. Doing this will help ensure a quick end to the devastating 
blow this lawsuit has inflicted upon on our economy and the citizens 
of the United States.
    Respectfully,
    Josh Sparks, MSS
    NewData Strategies www.newdata.com
    Consulting* Hosting* Education*
    Ph# (972)735-0001x149
    Ph# 1-800-258-6628
    Fax (972)735-8008
    Email [email protected]



MTC-00009155

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think this settlement is fair. Forcing Microsoft to 
``give away'' its software as punishment is not punishment at all. 
The actual cost to Microsoft is minimimal. However the benefits are 
fantastic, they get a leg up on the competition by getting their 
product in front of the public and children. Children are then 
taught to use Microsoft products and they are now their customer. A 
great deal for Microsoft. The punishment should be for a cash 
settlement or force Microsoft to purchase competitors products for 
the schools.
    Charles Pappas
    20 grand View Road
    Arlington, MA 02476
    781-643-3253



MTC-00009156

From: James W. Bushee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I was pleased by the announcement of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I credit that to the wisdom of the leadership at the 
Department of Justice and know that it took a lot of thought and 
extensive work. Although the proposed settlement wasn't as 
permissive as Microsoft would have liked, it wasn't as onerous as 
sought by Microsoft's competitors. I congratulate you and truly 
believe it was in the best interest of the public.
    I want to go on record in support of the settlement. I just hope 
we, as a Nation/our government, can move on now to address real-time 
problems. It is unfortunate Microsoft's competitors are so intent on 
making lawyers rich by seeking to continue litigating.
    J. W. Bushee



MTC-00009157

From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:52am
Subject: Microsoft
    Stanley Kneppar
    8109 Hibiscus Circle
    Tamarac, FL 33321
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the settlement in the 
Microsoft case. This is a balanced agreement, painstakingly 
negotiated with a court appointed mediator. Microsoft will have to 
make some critical concessions, while being allowed to use the 
technology that has made it the gold standard for computer 
innovation.
    I am convinced that Microsoft's success comes from the 
simplicity and superiority of its product. I briefly used the 
Netscape Navigator before switching to the Microsoft Internet 
Explorer, and I found the latter to be very preferable. The company 
does not deserve to be punished with litigation just for being a 
success. I anticipate that as Microsoft is forced to open up its 
codes for Windows to improve interoperability, we will see the 
competition and Microsoft improve such soft ware as browsers and 
media players. In turn, that is good for consumers.
    I sincerely hope the District Court Judge deems the settlement 
to be in the public's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley Kneppar
    cc: Representative Robert Wexler



MTC-00009158

From: Connie and Tom Forster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:January 7, 2002
    The Microsoft litigation has gone on long enough. The people at 
Microsoft are not saints, but neither are their competitors.
    *Most of the states that are still pursuing the litigation have 
budget problems of their own, so their motives are mixed to say the 
least.
    *Many of the class action trial lawyers feel that getting money 
and software products to some schools is a better idea than spending 
it covering legal fees. I've bought Microsoft products for years. 
How large a check am I likely to get in the mail if a class action 
lawsuit were to prevail?
    *Finally a word about Microsoft's theme about being free to 
innovate. I recently upgraded to Windows XP, and have been

[[Page 25119]]

quite pleased at the number of new and improved features that this 
operating system contains, everything from a good web browser, to an 
improved backup and a firewall that really works. Plus literally 
dozens of additional features. Certainly most consumers don't want 
to have to buy each of these features separately, and then keep them 
updated. Microsoft does ensure that its office products work well 
with it its operating system. But the settlement which it reached 
with the Justice Department will make it very difficult to Microsoft 
to interfere with the development and marketing of good competitive 
products.
    I hope that in when the District Court decides this issue, it 
will accept the proposed settlement. What I fear most is not 
Microsoft, but rather excessive regulation of the software and 
technology industries.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Forster



MTC-00009159

From: Dallas Lawrence
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I write to respectfully file my personal objections to the 
proposed settlement now laid before the Court in Microsoft v. US. As 
a native of California's ``Silicon Valley'' I have had the 
opportunity to witness the many negative results of Microsoft's 
monopolistic and predatory practices first hand and am greatly 
concerned with what now appears to be a complete abandonment of the 
previous Court findings in this case. After years of legal 
wrangling, millions of tax dollars spent and unanimous findings of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals, it would no doubt now be a travesty of 
justice for the Court to mete out anything but a balanced judgment 
against Microsoft, seeking full redress for the findings of the 
Court of Appeals.
    I am quite confident that Your Honor will receive thousands of 
letters expressing the many technical flaws of the proposed 
settlement, in far better language than I could possibly hope to 
offer in this brief appeal. Therefore, I will focus this letter on 
one overriding concern not adequately addressed in the proposed 
settlement:
    The proposed final judgment does not appear to provide for an 
effective enforcement mechanism for the minimal restrictions it does 
provide for. If there is one thing we have learned from dozens of 
previously failed ``watchdog'' programs, both home and abroad, it is 
that, if there is no adequate and independent enforcement mechanism 
in place to enforce the agreement, there is no incentive for the 
penalized party to abide by the findings. Providing for an 
inspection panel with a 2/3rds majority, either directly appointed 
or approved of by the party under inspection, opens the entire 
process to severe criticism at the least and complete 
ineffectiveness at the worst.
    If the Court is to agree with the unanimous findings of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals, Microsoft's guilt is no longer a matter for 
debate. The Court must now decide that the United States Government 
is both serious in meting out punishment for past illegal practices 
and equally dedicated to curbing future abuses under the law.
    I respectfully submit to the Court that the proposed final 
judgment does neither.
    Respectfully,
    Dallas B. Lawrence
    1601 Argonne Place, NW #517
    Washington, DC 20009



MTC-00009160

From: James Doc Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:03am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please accept the microsoft settlement. This lawsuit has already 
destroyed the retirement income of thousands of people. It should 
have never been brought in the first place. Pleae do not continue to 
harm the american public with this lawsuit.
    Doc



MTC-00009161

From: steve skinner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The companies that should be facing criticism are Sun and 
Oracle. Oracle has done everything they can to become a monopoly and 
since Informix has been bought they no longer face competing with 
superior technology. Sun is much worst. They are the ultimate 
hypocrites. They claim JAVA as the open standard and don't give it 
to standards. Sun also is the group that stopped the OSF initiative 
for a Unix standard.
    Why hasn't Oracle been sued as a monopolistic company? Why is 
Sun allowed to castigate Microsoft for practices that it strives to 
achieve?



MTC-00009162

From: Jonathan Tarbox
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I was deeply involved with the BeOS operating system at one time 
and would greatly love to get back into the swing of things with it. 
However, since Be, Inc. is no more and Palm is hesitant about 
licensing out the BeOS source code to the BeUnited project 
(www.beunited.org), I thought I'd voice my opinion.
    The main thing that prevented BeOS, or any non-Microsoft 
operating system, from being shipped on any mainstream OEM computers 
was the MS licensing preventing OEM companies from being able to 
install other operating system. There should be no bonus or penalty 
to an OEM for not installing or installing another operating system 
on a shipping PC. From what I knew of the deal, an OEM company would 
loose out on bonuses that Microsoft would award thier OEM purchasers 
if they installed other operating systems on thier shipping PCs.
    And because of the lack of OEM support, hardware manufacturers 
would often not write drivers for thier hardware for the BeOS. This 
greatly hurt the momentem of the BeOS to a point that the owners of 
Be, Inc. had to shift focus to Internet Appliance devices instead of 
PCs. This also didn't pan out and the IP of Be, Inc. was sold to 
Palm recently. Personally, I believe the settlement should prevent 
MS from using licensing or monetary bonuses to sway OEMs into using 
only MS products on thier PCs. It should also remove limitation of 
not allowing any other operating system to dual boot with any MS 
operating system.
    Thanks,
    Jonathan Tarbox



MTC-00009163

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    When this Midrosoft mess began, I could not believe our 
Government was prosecuting an American Company which has done so 
much to advance our society (both personal and business). Now that 
the initial phase of the Salem process (prosecution) has been 
completed and we no longer have an administration which requires 
constant diversions, I believe it is time to stop this procecution 
and address other issues in which the DOJ is so effective. e.g. 
crime (dirty and white), Enron insider trading which is affecting 
literally millions, illigal drug trafficing, etc.
    The Microsoft case has, no doubt, financially enhanced the 
``legal'' segment economy and the economies of some states which are 
desperate for revenues. I only hope that the revenues (benefits) 
generated for these entities is as beneficial and far reaching as 
those which would have affected the shareholders of Microsoft and 
the business community as a whole. I believe this entire process of 
prosecuting Microsoft is unfair to the general public and business 
alike. However, if Microsoft is willing to accept a settlement as 
negotiated with the DOJ, I believe it is in the best interest of all 
to close this matter and get on with more significant national 
interest. I like our most recent governmental attitude, Lets Roll.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
    Larry Clark
    15903 Redwood Pl
    Houston, TX 77079



MTC-00009164

From: Comly, Jr, A. R.
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    It is time to close this litigation and move on. I respectfully 
encourage that all parties accept the settlement proposed by the 
Tunney Act.
    Sincerely;
    Albert R. Comly



MTC-00009165

From: John Limmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:33am
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    Dept. of Justice;
    As a computer technology person in an independent school, I 
cannot accept the wisdom of allowing Microsoft to provide free

[[Page 25120]]

software as compensation for their antitrust transgressions. This 
would simply allow Microsoft to invade an area they do not currently 
dominate. Once started down the Microsoft road, schools will not be 
able to change course, it would simply be more and more Microsoft 
products. Assess a financial penalty, then if you wish to help 
schools, give then money, not Microsoft products.
    John Limmer
    Newark Academy
    91 South Orange Ave.
    Livingston, New Jersey 07039



MTC-00009166

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am writing to you as a comsumer interested in computers and 
software and the innovation that provides better products for us. My 
husband and I are both in favor of the settlement the goverment has 
made with Microsoft. Please put an end to this ligation.



MTC-00009167

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let this settlement be done and over with. The US 
Government has spent so much of our taxpayers dollars to go after a 
company who is being penalized for being successful and it's 
competitors are crying the blues because they are behind the 8-ball. 
They are putting money into the pockets of Liberals to battle 
Microsoft in the courtroom and not on the consumer product field and 
it hasn't worked. Microsoft has continued to bring out new products 
and prosper financially despite the Antitrust lawsuit against them 
showing their resilience. If the Department of Justice wants a true 
monopoly to go after, look back to proposed legislation from the 
fall of 1999 from Senator Tim Johnson from South Dakota, I think, 
about companies in the meat processing business owning livestock. 
Some states have adopted laws to try to slow down companies like 
Smithfield Foods. They continue to destroy a segment of the food 
chain and this Government does nothing about it. They are the 
largest pork processor in the US and the largest pork producer in 
the US. They continue to grow by buying up the competition in their 
market and totally control the market price of pork in this nation. 
They also continue to grow by acquiring producer farms through a 
practice they used during the market lows of the late 1990s of 
ledger buying. They took over Murphy Farms that way, and they were 
the single largest pork producer in this country.
    Microsoft having market superiority does not hurt consumers, ask 
consumers of their products what they think about them bringing new 
products to the market, and if their bring competitive products, who 
benefits? The consumer! If Smithfield Foods continues to roll like 
an avalanche over the pork production business without any regard 
period, who loses? The consumer just for starters! Pork producers as 
well, the meat processing business, and the government. Please take 
a look at this Goliath company and it's business practices. I live 
in North Carolina and in the last 10 years have seen this company 
single-handedly destroy the pork production business in the states 
of North and South Carolina and Georgia. There are NO competitive 
packers in the areas and every time there has been any rumors of 
some other company coming to the Southeast, Smithfield Foods 
immediately jumps on the situation with both feet and squelches any 
possibility of competition in this area. They bought every 
competitor in the area as well as some in the Midwest and have shut 
them down. This situation is worthy of a look if any person within 
the Department of Justice is truly concerned for the well being of 
the citizens of the United States of America. Thank you! Robert A. 
Fisher



MTC-00009168

From: Kirk Nason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10'55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to move on, please don't waste my tax dollars by tying 
up technology in the legal system. Let the software companies 
compete on their capabilities, not through lawyers. Microsoft has 
done more for computing than any another software company. When my 6 
year old can be productive for homework on Windows and Office, this 
is a testimate to the abilities MS brings to society.
    My family has not been ``harmed'' by pricing by Microsoft. I 
continue to derive greater and great value from the integration MS 
has achieved in their software products. There are more important 
things for you to be concentrating on, like terrorism, security, 
education and how bad our immigration and power problems are. This 
is where we are getting ripped off. Even though I achieved the 20% 
discount for power all summer (do to conservation, buying florescent 
lighting, etc), my bill is radically higher than a year ago.
    Fix the real problems ....
    Regards,
    Kirk J. Nason
    714/842-8051
    kirk [email protected]



MTC-0009169

From: Pete Kline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much in favor of the Microsoft Settlement. This case 
has been a witch hunt, pursuing a company that has done more to 
drive consumer pricing down than any government agency ever thought 
of.
    Lets get it over with and behind us.
    J. Peter Kline
    214-378-4823



MTC-0009170

From: Sid Sidner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:12am
    7 December 2002
    Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
    Suite 1200, Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I wish to comment on the proposed penalties in the Microsoft vs. 
Department of Justice case. I have been a computer software engineer 
for over 30 years. I use all of Microsofts products and have 
developed sophisticated banking and electronic payment applications 
that are sold worldwide, designed to using Microsoft Windows server 
operating system and associated database and Web software. I also 
have extensive experience with Unix and IBM mainframes. I lived 
through the era of the IBM monopoly on computer systems, when I 
watched innovation in hardware, software, and systems grind to 
nearly a standstill. I have watched with dismay the same process 
starting to occur again, courtesy of Microsoft. Microsoft has been 
found to maintain monopolistic practices. What is at issue is what 
remediation can be obtained for this past practice and what can be 
done to prevent damage in the future.
    The very future of computer technology is at stake here. The 
United States is the world leader in computer technology and much of 
our prosperity of the last ten years is based on this. Even in the 
area of biology and medical research, computers are becoming 
critical to further advances in genomics and diagnostic equipment. 
Based on my technology and business experience, the following three 
remedies seem simple, practical and effective:
    The bundling of Microsoft software with personal computers 
should be terminated, and replaced with realistic pricing of this 
software as an extra-cost option, allowing third-party operating 
systems (like Linux) and applications (like Lotus SmartSuite) to 
compete; Microsoft must publish the file formats used by its 
software with each release of the software, similar to the way they 
publish application programming interfaces (APIs), allowing third-
party applications the ability to interoperate with Microsoft 
applications; Likewise, computer-to-computer networking protocols 
must be published when software is released, again to allow non-
Microsoft systems to interact with Microsoft systems.
    None of these remedies are burdensome or expensive to Microsoft.
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement to include these 
remedies.
    Thank you,
    Sid Sidner
    PO Box 335, Fort Calhoun, NE 68023-0335
    [email protected] (402) 850-7092



MTC-0009171

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please add my voice to those strongly supporting the final 
settlement of the Microsoft case. The world is better off today, by 
far, as a result of the genius and freedom to innovate of Microsoft 
employees and management.
    H.C. Graves



MTC-0009172

From: Walter Brown
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25121]]

Date: 1/7/02  11:05am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The attached letter expresses my concerns regarding further 
action against Microsoft. Thank you for your consideration.
    John W. Brown
    3082 Greenwood Road
    Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
    January 5, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to implore you to agree to the 
terms of the settlement that was reached between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. The settlement was reached after three years 
of extensive litigation and negotiations. To press this issue any 
further would be a complete waste of time and money. The agreement 
calls for Microsoft to grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure its operating system. They will then be able to promote 
non-Microsoft software programs that compete with the Microsoft 
programs included within Windows. Computer makers will now be free 
to remove the means by which consumers access various features of 
Windows, and can replace access to those features with access to 
non-Microsoft software.
    I have worked in the communications industry all my life, and 
have seen first-hand how innovative products have a positive effect 
on everyone. It is the same in the Information Technology industry, 
and I feel that if there is someone smart enough to provide a 
product that is far better than any other product, there is 
absolutely no reason why we should make them share the intricate 
design information with competitors. The government needs to keep 
their hands off private businesses, thereby allowing businesses to 
prosper and create more jobs. This will help our economy get out of 
its recession
    Please agree to the terms of the settlement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, and do not take any 
further action against Microsoft at the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    John Brown
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-0009173

From: Richard McIntosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:25am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    DEAR DOJ,
    PLEASE JUST LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THEY ARE THE INVENTORS AND 
CREATORS THAT GOT US THIS FAR IN TECHNOLOGY. I USED TO BE A ``MAC'' 
FAN, ADVOCATE UNTIL I LEARNED WHAT A PC WAS, I WOULD NEVER GO BACK 
TO A MAC. STIFLING THEIR R AND D WILL ONLY HOLD BACK TECHNOLOGY. YOU 
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THEM NOT ALLOWING OTHERS, (COMPANY'S) TO 
BENEFIT FROM THEIR TIME, ENERGY, AND CREATIVITY.
    IF OTHER COMPANIES WANT CERTAIN TYPES OF DESKTOPS OR SOFTWARE, 
LET MICROSOFT LOAD IT AT THE FACTORY SO THAT PURCHASER FEELS 
IMPORTANT. MICROSOFT DIDN'T START OUT AS A MONOPOLY, NEITHER DID 
FORD, CHEVROLET, CHRYSLER ETC. THEY ALL HAVE CERTAIN RADIOS, AND 
ENGINES AND WHEELS (FIRESTONE). ANYBODY HEARD OF THEM? IF ANYONE 
DOES NOT LIKE MICROSOFT WARE, BUY A MAC. A CRASH (COMPUTER CRASH) A 
WEEK WILL KEEP THEM BUSY.
    THANKS FOR READING,
    MAC
    TEACHER, CREEKSIDE H.S.



MTC-00009174

From: Eric Candell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to submit my approval of your recent action to settle 
with Microsoft on their anti-trust case. In reading through the 
settlement, it appears that you have gotten some significant 
concessions that ought to help to ensure that you can continue to 
protect consumers. At the same time, you have come to a conclusion 
that will finally cease the costly litigation that makes no sense to 
me and other taxpayers.
    I have never felt that Microsoft has tried to profit from me 
without providing me an excellent set of products in which they 
continue to innovate (Windows XP shows this quite clearly). They 
produce the most reliable products of any I install on my computer. 
And, they stand behind their products in a way that makes the user 
feel like an important part of their equation for the decisions they 
make.
    With your proposed settlement, I have confidence that they will 
not get out of control but can still continue to do the things that 
I'm so grateful they can do.
    Thanks for looking out for us-both in questioning Microsoft and 
in seeking closure in this case.
    Eric Candell



MTC-00009175

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    2743 Moorsfield Lane
    Jacksonville, FL 32225
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    USDOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter today to make you aware of my feelings 
about the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. After three protracted years of trials, both 
sides came to an agreement on the antitrust suit, and I fully 
support the settlement.
    The time has come for the United States to put that mess behind 
us, and turn our attention to more pressing issues. Microsoft had 
more restrictions than they deserved, such as disclosure of 
intellectual property concerning the Windows operating system, but 
the settlement is fair enough to both sides, and the government will 
create an independent review committee to make sure that Microsoft 
is holding up its end of the bargain. Microsoft has done so many 
good things for the technology industry, has provided jobs to 
thousands of individuals, and donated millions of dollars to 
charities and schools. Why punish a company that has been so 
beneficial to America?
    I appreciate your time in accepting my opinion, and wish you the 
best.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Cappiello



MTC-00009176

From: Randy Black
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  11:26am
Subject: Get off Microsoft's case
    Please stop this unnecessary litigation against Microsoft. You 
are wasting taxpayer dollars, your time and are attempting to 
bankrupt a great company.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Black



MTC-00009177

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government needs to settle this suit against Microsoft and 
allow Bill Gates to concentrate on his business instead of fighting 
off the government. It is a disgrace when a man builds his business 
and then is penalized and persecuted by his government for doing a 
good job and this is what has been done to Bill Gates. He should 
just be left alone to handle his company.



MTC-00009178

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement and move on. Why help Microsoft 
competitors. The country needs a settlement. Don't make a few 
lawyers rich.
    Ted Shreve



MTC-00009179

From: Curtis, Iva, 127WG, 6180
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft
    In regards to Microsoft's suit. I honestly feel that Microsoft 
did nothing wrong, nor did they try to Monoplyze PC's by placing 
their Browser on Desktop's. I just think that if someone comes up 
with an idea first, that they should be allowed to go with it. If 
Microsoft is smart and quick enough to beat others at doing this, 
why should they be punished.
    Well, this has been going on for such a long time and now comes 
the time to deal out the punishment and Microsoft has to pay up. The 
current settlement given is, I think, fair and Microsoft should be 
left alone to go forward in the name of technology.
    This is my opinion.
    Curtis



MTC-00009180

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

[[Page 25122]]

Date: 1/7/02  11:36am
Subject: upcoming court action
    Hello,
    As a technology professional retired...I think we should get off 
Microsoft and be thankful we have them in the USA. I have been in 
the computer business since before Microsoft had the operating 
system of choice. They can get a bit heavy at times and we should 
keep a watch on them to police the industry but a vendetta on behalf 
of their competition should not be an option.
    Bob Ulrich . . . retired University of California, Davis



MTC-00009181

From: Mitch Malouf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:34am
Subject: Law suit
    It seems that Microsoft is trying to be fair in this case but 
the government, federal and state, want to punish Microsoft for 
innovation. I some of the anti trust arguments, but government 
should stay out of business. Allow the free market to work, 
otherwise it will get political and destroy any business climate we 
now have in place.
    The lawyers are the only people benefitting from this case. The 
consumer will pay eventually.



MTC-00009182

From: John Giovannini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!
    Focus you attention on terrorists, both the kind that do 
physical harm and the kind that do cyber harm with their e-mailed 
viruses that disrupt work just because they can.
    John Giovannini



MTC-00009183

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a software developer and consultant who has worked for an 
anti-Microsoft company, I seriously believe that Microsoft's 
competitors will stop at nothing to defeat the company. The proposed 
settlement is a step in the right direction and the only thing 
holding back the last nine states is a powerful lobby that has been 
unable to defeat Microsoft in the marketplace. If Microsoft products 
were really that bad, no one would buy them. There are several 
documented pieces of software where Microsoft has filed (MS Bob for 
example) and no level of marketing or dominance will let a bad 
product win the marketplace. The question that must be applied is--
``Is this good for consumers?'' and I have to tell you to open your 
eyes and see that consumers like convenience features like having a 
calculator or simple word processor bundled with an operating 
system. I don't think Microsoft is without flaws, but don't tie 
there hands at the expense of my benefit.
    Please urge the nine states to settle, for consumers, for 
developers, for the industry and for our country.
    Thank you
    Daniel Fernandez
    [email protected]



MTC-00009184

From: Dolan, Aline
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  11:54am
Subject: It's the Law! Under DoD you can ONLY buy Microsoft. We've 
mandated their monopoly!
    I'm scared of Microsoft as a company. I'm not scared of many 
things in life, but they scare me. Maybe it's irrational, but I 
don't think so. I have watched over the years as they've 
misrepresented one thing and another. I told a friend, who is a 
Microsoft Certified Engineer, that I used Linux for my home desktop 
system, not being able to afford Microsoft, and he was amazed that I 
could use a 'command line interface' as ``You're not a programmer!'' 
It turns out he was told in his MS certification class that Linux 
was a command line OS understandable only by programmers. FOAD, 
which equates to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is the program that 
Microsoft has launched against any competitor, without an iota of 
truth, but what can a little guy do against them?
    Now they have .Net, and I see a future where no one but 
Microsoft customers will be able to access the Internet in the US. 
Right now, I often have to come to work to view a web site as it's 
been written in MS FrontPage. Many web sites written with FrontPage 
4.0 are unviewable to any browser not running on a Microsoft 
Platform, as FrontPage does not follow the W3C standards when 
creating a web site. Why should they bother to write a web page 
composer program which runs in any other browser? That defeats their 
purpose.
    MS was bundling FrontPage with their office suites, which means 
their customers won't look for another web composer. Since these 
people are not web designers, they don't understand the reason 
FrontPage is a damaged product. It looks fine in their Internet 
Explorer, so it must be a great page right? I try to do research for 
a paper for my class, and I can't read 25% of the web sites I hit. 
When .Net becomes the norm, I'll have to learn French or German in 
order to surf the web anymore. For an example of what Microsoft has 
done to the world as a whole, just look around your offices. The 
Department of Defense will allow no other operating system to be 
used, because they're stuck in the proprietary upgrade loop. Many 
other Government offices have the same mandate. The US Government 
puts millions of dollars per year into MS's pocket, because they 
were conned early on and now they *think* they're stuck. The 
decision makers are getting advice from NT engineers who are 
desperate to save their jobs, and tell lies like 'Linux is a command 
line interface users won't be able to understand.' Or maybe, like my 
friend, they just don't know they're lying.
    I work as an NT admin for the Navy. In just the last six months, 
my command has spent over $20,000 for products which are available 
without additional cost under Red Hat's Linux distribution. To date, 
the software on servers and machines at this tiny dental command has 
cost close to $65,000. Under RedHat Linux, it would have been under 
$10,000 for everything (or you cold just by pass RedHat and download 
it all for free). It's nuts that we're forced to do this.
    I wish I had time to make this more compelling, but I'm on my 
lunch break at work now. Ironically, the web site where I found your 
address is a mess in my browser at home, as it was written in 
FrontPage. I'm sure it's out there on a page I could read, but I'm 
too busy to go looking. As a side note, I can read less than one 
half of the Government web sites on the web, as most of them were 
created in Frontpage, or deliberately written to work only in 
Internet Explorer. I work for the Naval Dental Center, but at home I 
can't access my eMail or get updates or notices, because I don't use 
Microsoft at home, and I don't think it's right that I should have 
to pay over $5,000 to replace all of my current software with 
Microsoft software. I'm a taxpayer too. Don't I have the right to 
view pages made with tax dollars? Oh well, that's another rant 
altogether.
    Aline (Ali) Dolan
    Naval Dental Center Southeast
    Box 74
    Jacksonville, FL 32212-0074
    (904) 542-3546 ext 176
    DSN Prefix 942
    http://ndcse.med.navy.mil



MTC-00009186

From: chester c fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Department. of Justice
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    As a private citizen, this case should be closed and left as is. 
It has cost quite a bit of money to work on this case both from the 
government (representing the people), the taxpayers who pay the 
government to perform, and the Microsoft Co. who are the defendants 
of this case.
    The settlement brought forth by the lower courts is a fair one. 
It costs Microsoft Company to pay for its transgressions of the law 
and the Plaintiffs should be happy. The public (taxpayers) are sick 
and tired of this case dragging over the past two years.
    This case has been deemed fair by the courts, let it be. In the 
interests of justice for everyone concerned it is closed.
    Private Citizen, Chester fong
    801 Franklin St.
    Oakland, Ca 94607



MTC-00009187

From: RICHARD AMBROW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft should be given the freedom to innovate.
    Dear DOJ,
    I support Microsoft and their freedom to innovate. I believe the 
Microsoft case should be settled. The settlement will be good for 
the American people and the American economy.
    thanks. . . . .
    Richard Ambrow



MTC-00009189

From: Robert I. Parker

[[Page 25123]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:15pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    please add my voice & vote for the finalization of the agreed to 
settlement.
    Robert I Parker



MTC-00009190

From: david owens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:15pm
Subject: trial
    we have wasted enough resources of the taxpayers on this farce 
of a trial. There has not been any proof that I have been harmed by 
Microsoft. This is a scam by the liberal dicksuckers from the 
clinton administration-Janet Reno (gag)- to placate
    Sun and Oracle, big donators to clinton and other appeasers. 
Enough already. Get a life and rip Enron a new asshole.



MTC-00009191

From: Jack Frew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement under consideration is in the public 
interest



MTC-00009192

From: Washburn, Nelson (GEAE)
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/7/02  12:28pm
Subject: microsoft case
    SOUNDS LIKE SOUR GRAPES FROM THE COMPETITION. LEAD, FOLLOW OR 
GET OUT OF THE WAY.
    NELSON



MTC-00009193

From: bweidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:33pm
Subject: anti trust action
    end federal suit. it should never have been filed!!!!!



MTC-00009194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:40pm
Subject: MS SETTLEMENT
    RE: THE MS / DOJ SUIT SHOULD BE ENDED ASAP. THIS , I BELIEVE WAS 
THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE DOWN TURN IN THE STOCK MKTS AND ILL CONCIEVED 
BY THE CLINTON ADM. THE SOONER THIS DARK CLOUD IS REMOVED FROM OVER 
THE THE TECH INDUSTRIES THE SOONER THE MKTS WILL RETURN TO A STABLE 
AND PROFITABLE BASES. COME ON LETS END THIS WITCH HUNT AND MOVE FWD. 
TRYING TO SAVE FACE IS COSTING THIS COUNTRY TRILLIONS IN REV AND 
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS. REGARDS: D GOSNELL PRESIDENT DLG 
FIANCIAL INC.



MTC-00009195

From: Wayne (038) Mabel Rives
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In December 1996, I purchased my first computer, monitor and 
printer at a cost of $1350. In November 2001, I purchase a new 
computer, monitor, printer and premium speaker system for $750. I 
realize we are in a recession, however, prices have been steadily 
going down during this period. I fail to see how anyone can say that 
Microsoft has hurt the consumer. Next, the Justice Department and 45 
states have accepted the Microsoft settlement as fair and 
reasonable. I do not understand how the seven states could possibly 
think that the consumer or the states have been hurt and therefore 
should be rewarded in a suit against Microsoft. I believe the suit 
against Microsoft should be dismissed. Business needs to get on 
without this cloud of uncertainty. Wayne W. Rives



MTC-00009196

From: JEAN NEAL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:41pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I want to stress how important this settlement with Microsoft 
means to me as a consumer and as a Tax Payer. I want to continue to 
benefit from Microsoft's innnovations. I do not want any more of my 
tax dollars spent to fight the competitors inability to be as 
creative. Micrsoft has agreed to modify future business practices. 
Do not penalize a company who has the comsumers best interests at 
heart. Do not reward competitors who have grown bigger and better 
because of the competition. Do not force us to keep spending our 
hard earned money litigating.
    Sincerely yours
    Jean Y. Neal



MTC-00009197

From: Lois
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:47pm
Subject: Answer to Request
    Yes, Yes--The Government should have thrown that stuff away and 
quit torching Microsoft .



MTC-00009198

From: J.C. Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:48pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Case/Letter
    January 7, 2002
    Department of Justice:
    In today's economically down-turned climate, I encourage you to 
conclude the erroneous case against Microsoft. I also ask that you 
make this letter part of the official court record. Congressional 
analysts are predicting an expected $11.3 billion shortfall in state 
education budgets in fiscal year 2002. Private gifts could be vital 
in this dilemma. But indiscriminate acceptance of contributions 
could have catastrophic consequences, and some philanthropic efforts 
may actually be wasted or cause inadvertently harm. As a result of 
more than 100 class action lawsuits alleging Microsoft overcharged 
consumers,
    Microsoft has proposed a 5-year program and education 
settlement. This agreement with private class action attorneys in 
which Microsoft will direct over $1 billion in software, computer 
equipment, technology training and support to thousands of schools 
serving America's most disadvantaged children. It can be correctly 
argued that lack of technology is not the major problem faced by 
disadvantaged children. Chester Finn appropriately maintains that 
the most successful schools that succeed with low-income pupils 
generally do not surround them with electronics. Instead, he writes 
in the Wall Street Journal: ``they engage knowledgeable and 
committed teachers to deliver a powerful, coherent, curriculum built 
on high standards of skills and knowledge.'' It is true 
disadvantaged children may not necessary benefit. I would certainly 
suggest that both public and private schools be considered in this 
agreement. I would also advocate that low-income, high performing 
schools be given greater priority in this proposal. However, the 
settlement agreement could be a shift with tremendous potential for 
low-income and minority children.
    Technology in the wrong hands could divert children from 
academic pursuits. However, technology in the right hands could 
easily narrow the achievement gap. Therefore the risks clearly 
outweigh the potential for harm. By targeting disadvantaged 
children, Microsoft's investment could transform the cycle of 
poverty, as well as empower many of these children.
    Two innovative private urban schools in our state: Inner-City 
Academy and Bethlehem Academy for Boys in Chattanooga are using 
technology effectively to raise student achievement. Technology is a 
key ingredient in their successful program, but no more than 
excellent instruction, excellent textbooks and supplementary library 
books. The Bethlehem Academy for Boys has successfully incorporated 
parent involvement in their school using computer training. Will 
Microsoft raise its market share in schools and deepen their 
dependency on their products? Possibly. Yet nothing prevents other 
Silicon Valley billionaires injecting their vast fortunes into the 
equation. Apple, AOL Time Warner, Linux, Netscape, Oracle and Sun 
Micosystems are free to make contributions anytime. In my estimation 
any donation helps the tech industry in general, and is vital to our 
economic future. Governmental activism put us in this position; do 
we want more governmental activism to prevent this potential 
assistance? The answer is a resounding no. Conventional liberalism 
of the past must grasp an understanding of civil society and its 
inherent freedom, as well as seek to rejuvenate admiration for 
limited government and free-market economy. The values of 
entrepreneurial capitalism grease the wheels of democracy and we 
must attach importance to the social and cultural norms that make it 
possible. As my dad used to say ``no dream comes true until you get 
up and go to work.'' Many students are motivated and enjoy using 
technology in their education experience. Microsoft has enriched the 
education experience for many children and our work environments are 
now more productive. It is also plausible that acceptance of this 
agreement will allow schools to focus on other areas of need without 
taking resources away from other academic programs. Granted 
donations must be considered in coordination with the overall 
strategic plan

[[Page 25124]]

and academic needs of individual schools. Partnering with a company 
such as Microsoft and use of technology certainly has the potential 
to enhance student performance. Microsoft has a history of corporate 
philanthropy both in America and Internationally. Their generosity 
and technology has helped schools and other organizations improve 
effectiveness and save needed capital, in fact well over $6 billion 
in charitable or corporate contributions were used here in Tennessee 
for FY 2000. This court case needs immediate closure so we can begin 
to make dreams come true for children and teachers in the state of 
Tennessee.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    J. C. Bowman, Ph.D
    Tennessee Institute for Public Policy
    1808 West End Avenue, Suite 1214
    Nashville, TN 37203
    Telephone: 615-327-3120
    FAX: 615-327-3126
    http://www.TNPolicy.org
    [email protected]



MTC-00009199

From: Mark Ratto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:53pm
Subject: They just keep lying...
    To whom it may concern,
    If you want to find out more lies that Microsoft keeps spinning 
you can look at the following site. You would think that they would 
have learned their lesson, but no. They just can't try and make a 
superior product. They want to own everything in the Computer 
Technology. They want to have all of the Networking business so bad 
that they lie about out product, which they know is much better than 
theirs.
    www.whytheylie.com
    Thanks,
    Mark
    Thank You!



MTC-00009200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:53pm
Subject: Innovation
    Everytime litigation is mentioned the stock market and the 
economy is affected. The comprehensive agreement, already agreed 
upon, is really a rough one. If further penalties are agreed upon, I 
can't imagine what will happen to the economy, which I think is 
coming back. The government gives large amounts of money to big 
business and to Columbia [which get into the hands of the wrong 
people] Let Microsoft have the freedom to innovate and not let the 
special interest groups defeat us
    Make us proud of you,
    Helen Gildea



MTC-00009201

From: anndean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I feel this is unjust if all these states are against Microsoft 
he should have more time. I feel the whole case is unjust a 
monopoly?? Why Wal-Mart's sell food. drugs and now internet service! 
His product is the best.
    Case closed.
    Ann Reed
    10 Dover Lane
    Hendersonville, NC 28739



MTC-00009202

From: Shane Fausett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer user that hates using windows. However I feel 
that I am forced to do so. Because of Microsofts market position 
alternative operating systems don't stand a chance. I feel that the 
biggest abuse that Microsoft has been guilty of is that they 
restrict the boot loader on OEM computers. Making it next to 
impossible to buy a non-windows PC.
    Thank you
    Shane Fausett



MTC-00009203

From: David C. Crandall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    As a computer consultant, I have watched a large portion of the 
anti-trust case. In my opinion, the original suit did not go nearly 
far enough in exposing the depths of the anti-trust violations. The 
issue of collusion with hardware manufacturers in making hardware 
that was usable only with Microsoft products should have been 
extensively pursued.
    Also, the issue of Microsoft's `cooperation' with standards 
committee's for establishing standards for internet browsers, java 
(Sun Microsystems copyright, yet public domain), networking protocol 
committees, e-mail standards committees and so forth should have 
been prosecuted. The participation with Microsoft in these 
committees is not for the general public good, but is with the 
express intention and effect of turning `public standards' into 
proprietary standards whereby Microsoft further locks out 
competition.
    A split of Microsoft Corporation into at least two entities is a 
minimal remedy. Their continued monopoly in both the software and 
operating system arenas is not healthy for even the short term. 
Microsoft has become so large, that competition with them in either 
arena is a farce.
    Sincerely,
    David C. Crandall
    481 Rose Garden
    McKinney, Texas 75070
    972-346-2249
    [email protected]



MTC-00009204

From: Meyers, Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:06pm
    Microsoft is the most arrogant company in America. They 
monopolize and crush any competition unfairly. They need to be 
broken into three parts.



MTC-00009205

From: ROSE BUTKOVICH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE ACCEPT COURT OF APPEALS RULING!



MTC-00009206

From: avs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am glad that the DOJ is trying to resolve the Microsoft case. 
I believe that the uncertainty surrounding Microsoft has and 
continues to hurt the economy. I believe the quicker this is settled 
and business can go back to ``business'', the better for all.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Alan Spigelman



MTC-00009207

From: Matt Verran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US DOJ,
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed, especially 
since Microsoft declared BeOS as a competing Operating System:
    1) MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested 
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either 
in form of a source code license or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can 
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    2) The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    3) The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    4) The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
    I would suggest that this is the minimun settlement, as 
financial settlement will merely be paying to maintain the status 
unfairly achieved so far. The damage to Be Inc, and their new owners 
Palm Inc, has been substantial to the point of inability to operate 
and compete effectively.
    Regards,
    Matt Verran



MTC-00009208

From: Curt Sahakian
To: Microsoft ATR, attorney. general@ state.ct.us @ inet ...
Date: 1/7/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement will not accomplished any valid 
correction or even punishment of Microsoft.
    The proposed contirbution of software product to schools is a 
benefit.... it further's MS's Monopoly power by getting an early 
commitment from children to their operating system.

[[Page 25125]]

    Please accept the RedHat proposal to distribute their software 
for free and instead require MS to contribute hardware not software. 
The rest of the settlement is such a disgusting sellout by the DOJ 
to Microsoft its hard for me to even comment on it. Please demand 
more of Microsoft.
    Thanks
    Curt Sahakian
    847/676-2774



MTC-00009209

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    gentlemen: i am not an antitrust lawyer, i know nothing about 
antitrust laws and i only followed the legal proceedings in general 
terms. on the other hand, i don't consider myself stupid either. 
despite the judge's findings, i find it difficult to understand what 
microsoft did wrong--they negotiated hard. what is wrong with that--
i don't under-stand why hard negotiating is illegal. the main 
evidence against microsoft was from their competitors-- what do you 
expect the competitors to say?? the bottom line is now that the 
court has rendered its decision, and doj appears interested in 
settlement, lets end this litigation as fast as possible. in this 
era of business difficulties, microsoft appears to be one of the few 
that is not laying off employees--they are making a profit--they are 
paying their taxes. its time to end this as fast as possible. the 
federal government has proposed a fair settlement the ``holdouts'' 
have no credibility--i suspect they all have ulterior motives beyond 
the best interests of the consumer--like competitors being located 
in those states, etc.. incidentally, was there ever any proof (other 
than speculation from competitors) that the consumer was hurt by 
anything microsoft did. it looks like the consumer got the best 
product for the cheapest possible price. what's wrong with that?? 
isn't the government supposed to take care of the consumers most 
importantly rather than the interests of the competitors?? 
Incidentally and in the interest of full disclosure, I own 800 
shares of microsoft.- thank you--rvp



MTC-00009211

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Please record my opinion to not punish Microsoft for its 
success. It seems to me that some states are trying to help their 
revenue shortfalls by going after a company that has a strong 
financial sheet in the name of fairness. Let Microsoft do what it 
does best and allow it to serve as an example for the way a business 
should be.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Brown



MTC-00009212

From: Josef Lowder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:24pm
Subject: The Microsoft bully
    The Microsoft problem can be summed up in one simple statement:
    Microsoft should be allowed to run their business any way they 
want to ... as long as they allow others to run their businesses any 
way they want to. The problem with Microsoft is that they force 
themselves on the world to a ridiculous extent. They bully their way 
along in everything they do. They are predatory toward anything that 
is in any way competitive or potentially competitive toward them. 
Computers and their operation are so crucially important to 
virtually everyone today that it is a crime for anyone to try to 
dominate how things have to be done on computers. That is what 
Microsoft does. They do everything possible to force users into 
using Microsoft products. Even though I am ``forced'' to use a 
Microsoft operating system on two of my four computers, I do 
everything that I possibly can to try to minimize the extent to 
which I have to use anything Microsoft. But it is frustrating when 
Microsoft intentionally designs their basic operating system so that 
only Microsoft-based and Microsoft-dependent applications will run 
on their operating system and will run only on their operating 
system. Others are making a valiant effort to try to find ways 
around the problem, but Microsoft continues to bully their way along 
so that those without comparable resources can never adequately 
overcome all of the intrusiveness that Microsoft imposes upon the 
world. It is a travesty of incomprehensible proportions, and we can 
only hope and pray that the anti-trust suit will bring some relief 
to this untenable intrusion into our freedoms.
    Joe Lowder
    7514 E. Lompoc Avenue
    Mesa, Arizona 85208
    [email protected]
    480-325-5055



MTC-00009213

From: Bill Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:24pm
    Please know there are plenty of us out here, who believe the 
government should be out of this case as soon as possible.
    Thanks
    Bill Reilly



MTC-00009214

From: Ian C. Crooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please protect the consumers from the Microsoft tyranny. BeOS 
was squashed because of Microsoft's heavy handed OEM contracts, 
forcing PC makers from bundling others OS's with the PC.
    Allow consumers to make the choice of what they want to use as 
an OS not Microsoft.
    Ian C. Crooks, E.I.T.
    Operations Engineer
    Pennsylvania-American Water Company
    114 E. Lincoln Highway
    Coatesville, PA 19320
    610-384-4405 ext:112
    610-380-8532 fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00009215

From: Bob Hannah
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I would like to thank you for pursuing the Microsoft case. I for 
one, find it difficult being a webmaster, never mind a software 
developer, with Microsoft having the power to set standards by just 
``reinventing the wheel'' without any thought to industry as a 
whole. Please consider additional remedies.
    Bob Hannah



MTC-00009216

From: Kirchofer, Richard A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  1:40pm
    Dear Sirs:
    Sour grapes, Microsoft has done more to make computers useful to 
the common man than all the other companies put together. The trial 
is over, let's move forward on important issues like getting 
broadband into every home and business. I don't use all Microsoft 
products I do have a choice. However I do not have a choice for the 
phone lines coming to my house. Bellsouth is a monopoly in my 
neighborhood with no intension of providing hardware capable of 
supporting DSL or even a 56K modem. We live in a dynamic world; 
let's focus on the issues that limit our progress and productivity 
and that hasn't been Microsoft for a long time!
    Sincerely
    Richard Kirchofer



MTC-00009217

From: Rocky C. Burrous
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The treatment that Microsoft has received from the government is 
undeserved, and it is time that it ends. Luckily, a resolution has 
been reached; with its adoption, the years of litigation can once 
and for all be resolved. The resolution to which I refer is the one 
reached in November after years of hard fought legal battles. The 
terms of this settlement are ones that are beneficial to all the 
people involved and still keep competition within this market. The 
terms include a groundbreaking provision that requires Microsoft to 
disclose crucial interfacing information to computer manufacturers. 
It further stipulates that Microsoft cannot retaliate against 
computer makers who do not promote their software or promote a 
competitor's software instead. This is a resolution that preserves 
the spirit of a free market and still offers protection for the 
little guy. Well, folks, it doesn't get any better than this. More 
litigation could only complicate the issue, and it could only waste 
more time and resources. Therefore, the last thing we need is more 
litigation. I implore you to let the current agreement be the end of 
this situation. The resolution truly is the best that can be done.

[[Page 25126]]

    Sincerely,
    Rocky Burrous



MTC-00009218

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  1:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    I think it is a waste of our (taxpayers) money what is going on 
it is just the states trying to make money. let the people decide if 
they want to use Microsoft or not not a bunch of crybabies 
(competitors) who can't do it on their own Rufus Richey



MTC-00009219

From: Janet Leih
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have never understood why the government was going after 
Microsoft in the first place. Because I have been in computer 
programming for and operations for 45 years, it seems idiot to me. 
It was the only stupid thing Janet Reno did while attorney general 
(I wish I could say I had only done one stupid thing in my life). 
Before Microsoft wrote it's Windows system and MS DOS, IBM was 
basically the only show in town. There were a few other computer 
manufacturers, but IBM had the lion's share of the market.
    The way Microsoft wrote the Windows system, they let any company 
wrote software that runs under Windows, and may have been 
responsible for the greatest economic surge in our history. What did 
Apple do? Everything that runs on an Apple Computer is propriatory. 
Nobody but Apple can write programs for their system. Thousands, if 
not hundreds of thousands of small companies owe their existance to 
Microsoft's decision to allow anyone run their software under 
Windows. If Bill Gate gets wealthy by being inclusive rather than 
exclusive, that just proves that democracy works to everyone's 
benefit.
    Before Windows, computers were huge, expensive, and were only 
owned by large businesses and wealthy people. After Windows, 
computers became small, inexpensive and everyone from millionaires 
to school kids own them.
    Microsoft has ``bundled'' many programs with its system 
previously. I have ``notepad'', ``wordpad'', ``paintbrush'' and 
``games'' and a ``sound recorder'' to mention a few ``accessories'' 
bundled with my system. Internet Explorer was just another accessory 
that Microsoft was giving with its system to enhance the product for 
the consumer. The fact that it was being given free makes it hard 
for me to understand why the government is saying that this is bad 
for the consumer.
    I think it was bad for Netscape. Maybe it was bad for some other 
businesses. But the consumer certainly wasn't in any danger of being 
scammed because they were being given something free. That is 
frankly a bunch of crap.
    Janet Leih
    P. O. Box 164
    Canton, SD 57013-0164
    (605) 987-5070



MTC-00009220

From: Jason Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done a great deal for this country. It has 
propelled us to the forefront of the technological age. It has 
stiffened the economy by creating many well paying jobs, which are a 
by-product of the great many technological innovations they have 
introduced, and it has created a standard for which the internet was 
able to flourish. Before Microsoft, networks could barely speak to 
each other, with every subnet running it's own proprietary network 
kernel. Now, we have a TCP/IP standard, introduced and largely 
developed by Microsoft.
    Let's stop and think where this country would be if it hadn't 
been for the endeavors of Microsoft. If you think we would be in a 
better place; history says you are mistaken.
    The computing industry has had roughly 20 years to build a 
better user-friendly, operating system. UNIX, BSD, AIX, and Linux 
all have been around longer than Windows and have all failed to 
achieve the success that Windows has.
    Not because of anti-competitive practices, but because Microsoft 
has a better product that is easy for people to use. How have they 
hurt the consumer? I can remember paying $500 for a copy of Lotus' 
Office suite and a similar price for Corel's before Microsoft 
introduced MS Office.
    Linux, which has less than a sixth of the features of Windows, 
sells for only $20 less.
    This is a Capitalistic Republic; the objective of a business is 
to over-come your competition, not to help them.
    An anti-Microsoft decision in this case will be devastating to 
the economy and to the U.S.'s role of technological innovations. The 
only one's that would benefit from an anti-MS decision is Microsoft 
competitors and state governments that are always looking for a way 
to collect more money.
    As a consultant that has worked on projects for the state of 
Massachusetts, I find it hard to believe that the government of this 
commonwealth knows what is good for the industry. Also, in 
correspondence with my state Attorney General Reilly, he certainly 
has had some very unprofessional replies, which seems to imply that 
he has taken this effort personally. The letter I received from his 
office in reply to an inquiry I sent about the MS case was nothing 
more than an angry juvenile rant that reeked of cynicism and offered 
no legitimate arguments other than hearsay.
    An Anti-MS Judgment will set a very bad precedence; it will send 
the message that competitors are policing the market, not consumers. 
And that the company that spends the most money lobbying the 
government will come out the winner in the end. Instead of the 
company that spends the most time and effort on developing a quality 
product. None of the Microsoft competitors in this case have a 
product that even comes close to the features and ease of use of 
Microsoft products. In closing I would just like to say that during 
these times of uncertainty, we should be standing strong behind our 
ideals and the tools and vehicles of them. Microsoft is one of the 
best examples of this Republic's Capitalism, and it should be an 
encouragement of hope and Patriotism for all American's.
    Sincerely,
    Jason J. Withrow
    D8 Al Pace Drive
    North Attleboro, MA 02760
    508-643-0316
    [email protected]



MTC-00009221

From: Tom and/or Susan Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My message to the Attorney Generals of the nine hold-out states 
concerns their winning of a major victory against Microsoft and 
their refusal to let go when the fighting should stop.
    There comes a time after many years of argument that settlement 
should be made, not only as common sense, but as a matter of 
business. Our economic concerns are not merely local, but national, 
and more importantly, global. Our position concerning the freedom to 
innovate involves national and international prestige, and it is in 
our ``public interest'' to remain the foremost nation on earth. 
Hampering one company can stifle innovation among all our computer 
companies, and at any time we must remain unified in our effort to 
provide the best that there is.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Church Moore



MTC-00009222

From: Dr. Hartmut Reh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I think that it is necessary to remedy the situation that has 
been brought on BeOS due to MS's strongarm tactics . I am part of a 
worldwide network that is working on getting the BeOS or equivalent 
back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if the 
following issues aren't addressed, for example: open Office file 
formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory. Furtheron it 
must be possible to sell PCs with pre-installed BeOS.
    Best regards
    Dr. Hartmut Reh



MTC-00009223

From: kevin murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madame:
    I think it is time to settle and move on. Microsoft is willing 
to make the necessary changes to keep the industry competative. The 
other nine states are looking for the next tobacco type settlement 
and this case just isn't the same. That would be exsessive and 
unwarrented. (It smells of politicial agendas.) Unlike the Antitrust 
of Standard Oil early in the last century, we don't have to keep 
buying Microsoft products. With Gasoline we have to buy it every 
week and an anti-trust settlement of Standard Oil was warranted to 
protect us from price gouging. I don't feel

[[Page 25127]]

that Microsoft could gouge us since I never have to buy another 
Microsoft product as long as I live if I don't want to.
    Let's wrap this one up and spend money on something else. I feel 
protected from Microsoft already.



MTC-00009224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:08pm
Subject: Let it rest
    I think you have wasted enough time and money on this case. Fine 
Bill and Microsoft heavily and move on. Our country is built on the 
strong surviving and not hand holding the companies that can't play 
in the big leagues. Maybe Netscape should have just looked at their 
business model and watched the finances closer. I do not think the 
Netscape guy did bad for himself since AOL purchased them. AOL is 
another company that is a monopoly who put Comuserve and Protogy 
basically out of business. Why don't we look into that case? What 
about ComCast purchasing AT&T broadband to be the largest ISP 
provider. Do you think that is in my favor? Lets focus on real 
issues like economy, homelessness and joblessness. Let Microsoft 
make the money they want because they provide jobs to more people 
than the government can understand.



MTC-00009225

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear USDOJ and Judge Kollar-Kotelly
    I AM AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . IT IS AN INEFFECTIVE 
SLAP ON THE WRIST! I expect to see the USDOJ attorneys who drafted 
this sellout of the USA, working for Microsoft or it's law firms in 
the future.
    This is a shameful scandal that will take its place in our 
govenment 's history along with the Teapot Dome Scandal and the 
Watergate coverup.
    I am a citizen of the USA. I have a degree in Film and 
Television from NYU and a Masters Degree in Interactive Technology 
in Education from Harvard. I also am President of a multimedia 
company.
    MICROSOFT IS ALREADY WORKING TO LEVERAGE IT'S MONOPOLY IN 
OPERATING SYSTEMS AND EXTEND IT'S ANTICOMPETITIVE, PREDATORY TACTICS 
AND CREATE FURTHER MONOPOLIES IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND GAMES, 
INTERNET ACCESS AND CONTENT, VIDEOGAME SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE, COPY 
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY AND UNDISCLOSED FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES
    As a consumer, a technology professional and a small business 
owner: I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED THAT MICROSOFT IS A THREAT TO 
THE SPIRIT, FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA; IF IT'S CONSISTENTLY(COURT PROVEN) MONOPOLISTIC,ILLEGAL, 
IMMORAL, ANTICOMPETITIVE, PREDATORY TACTICS AND ACTS ARE NOT 
STOPPED!
    To add insult to injury, Microsoft exhibited it's arrogant 
disregard and disrespect for the citizen consumers, laws and courts 
of the USA by lying in depositions and court testimony and 
fraudulently misrepresenting facts in courtroom demonstrations in 
the recent trial.
    Clearly the citizens and governments of Seven States have the 
courage to hold out for Justice. DO THE RIGHT THING, AMERICA IS 
WATCHING!
    THANK YOU,
    William J. Roberts
    34 Byron Rd, Natick, MA
    1-508-650-0015
    [email protected]



MTC-00009226

From: Jason Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:19pm
Subject: Public Commentary
    Dear Sirs,
    This letter is to express my support for the comments made in a 
previous email sent by:
    Ganesh Prasad
    [email protected]
    Dated January 1st, 2002.
    You can find a copy of this letter/email on the web, here: 
http://linuxtoday.com/news--story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-OP-MS 
I am an experienced Network Engineer (MCSE) specializing in Network 
Security. Ganesh Prasad's statements in his letter to the DOJ 
reflects my own feelings about what needs to be done for justice to 
be adequatly satisfied. If you have not already done so, please take 
the time to read Ganesh's letter to the DOJ.
    Jason Bennett--Network Engineer
    Rural/Metro Corporation--Network Services
    Office: (480) 606-3490



MTC-00009228

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:28pm
Subject: drop the case this is ridicuolus
    there are going to be other problems the case is destined to 
thrown out



MTC-00009229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring an end to this ordeal. The settlement appears fair, 
although I believe Microsoft has been treated unfairly from the 
start. But I'll let that pass for the sake of this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Bodenstab
    West Chester, PA



MTC-00009230

From: Randy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:31pm
Subject: DEAR SIRS,
    DEAR SIRS,
    AS I CONTINUE TO READ ABOUT THE ONGOING '' ANTI-TRUST '' CASE 
AGAINST MICROSOFT I FIND MYSELF WONDERING THE SAME OLD QUESTION,'' 
WHO ACUALLY COMPLAINED '' ????.
    I DO NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER BELIEVED THAT IT WAS THE 
''CONSUMER '', THAT FILED THESE COMPLAINTS. IS'NT IT THE CONSUMER 
THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE PROTECTING ???? AFTERALL,IF WE WERE NOT 
COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH MICROSOFT PRODUCTS I DONT IMAGINE THAT WE 
WOULD PURCHASE SAID PRODUCTS. SO NOW TELL ME,WHO IS IT AGAIN,,,THAT 
IS BEING HURT..
    RANDY WHITE
    IDAHO FALLS,IDAHO



MTC-00009231

From: Mike Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion... the DOJ should back off a little. I think the 
DOJ investigation is being driven by competitors of Microsoft. I 
also think Microsoft's competitors are jealous because they have 
been unable to duplicate Microsoft's success.
    Do you remember what it was like to work with computers in the 
70's and 80's??? Proprietary computers running proprietary software. 
Hardware and software costs were outrageous and maintenance cost 
weren't much better. Software programs were not standardized and 
they didn't always play nice with each other. The philosophy of big 
computer companies seemed to be, ``Do it our way or don't do it''. 
Trying to get different computer to work together was very 
frustrating (if not impossible).
    Microsoft could have played by the same rules as everybody else 
(in the computer industry). Instead, today we have standards and 
tightly integrated tools for developing and running software.
    I do not think Microsoft is a Monopoly. They do not own the 
hardware and software (unlike Apple and IBM), and there are many 
operating systems to choose from. You can run several types of UNIX, 
Macintosh, OS2, etc... Most people choose MSWindows. It is quite 
nice to have many tools integrated into the MS operating system.
    Because of its size it may be a good idea to keep an eye on 
Microsoft, but in my opinion they should get a commendation for what 
they have accomplished. Microsoft has made my job easier and more 
productive.
    Michael A Pritchard
    Access Development
    Director of IS, CIO
    SLC, Ut



MTC-00009232

From: paul e jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft case should be settled in 
accordance with the reduced liability finding of the Court of 
Appeals. As a consumer, I agree that the settlement is good for all 
of us and the Government should not spend any more money with 
further litigation. If you wish to receive any more detailed 
comments from me, send your request to my email address.
    Paul Jensen
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25128]]



MTC-00009233

From: Clay Bullwinkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States Department of Justice
    Dear Madams and Sirs:
    Thank you for conducting and managing this call for input. No 
doubt you receive thousands of emails and letters with little or no 
new input, and in some cases crank content. Yet you must sift 
through all of them. I myself have encouraged and led on-line debate 
in the information technology industry on the Microsoft case. I hope 
here to offer you a few information points which probably will be 
unique and useful. I have an M.B.A. degree from Stanford and have 
held executive positions in the information technology industry with 
Hewlett Packard, 3Com, and now my own company E.W. Bridge LLC.
    In a nutshell, Microsoft has broken the law with their 
overzealous channel control tactics. You folks can forcefully and 
effectively can deal with that. It should stop there. To have 
considered anything further in their activities as subject to legal 
scrutiny has been the concoction of their competitors, and, most 
frighteningly, outsiders in government, media and others who wish to 
seize influence and control in the PC industry. As you should be 
already aware, the overwhelming majority of software engineers favor 
a quick end to the Microsoft case with minimal intrusion of the 
federal government into Microsoft's affairs. If you look at any on 
line forum for the general programmer community, e.g. not 
specifically Apple or Palm people, you will find this to be the 
case. They especially do not want government dictating what should 
or should not be in a software product. Generally speaking, these 
people are the most knowledgeable about their industry. Their voice 
has to carry weight. They understand the benefits and threats from 
Microsoft better than any general businessman or politician. They, 
as well as myself, understand that the failure of Microsoft's 
competitors--Sun, Netscape (AOL), IBM, Apple, Palm, Borland, Novell, 
WordPerfect, Corel, etc. etc.- has been primarily due to 
mismanagement in these companies, and in some cases Microsoft's 
economies of scale, and not to illegal behavior by Microsoft. All of 
these companies have been plagued by lazy management lacking care 
and diligence for their future. Most executives, such as myself, 
understand that ruthless distribution tactics sometimes exhibited by 
Microsoft are part of every Business 101 course and practiced by all 
corporations in all industries, including by the companies named 
above. Please remember to monitor and utilize on-line forums for 
software engineers as a good source of input. Regarding the 
``outsiders'' mentioned above, I could hardly be more alarmed.
    If Mr. Gore had won the election, his DOJ would have continued 
to try to take control of Microsoft and allocate its pieces to 
cronies. The media largely avoided mentioning that the written 
remedy by Mr. Jackson included installation of on-site overseers 
(commissars) within the pieces of Microsoft, without restriction on 
their authority. Mr. Gates would have been prevented from founding a 
new company with employees from Microsoft. This was a necessary 
measure because most of Microsoft's software engineers would seek to 
work for him. I have done business for 18 years in the formerly 
communist countries of Europe and the old U.S.S.R., and I am well 
read on their history. It does not take a rocket scientist to see 
that those in and outside the Department of Justice who were driving 
the excessive prosecution in the Microsoft case had Bolshevist 
intent, with courts replacing guns. I would bet that if you looked 
into their backgrounds, for example, Mr. Klein, you would find 
parents or grandparents with Soviet sympathies. In terms of threat 
to American society and culture, Al-Qaida is but a drop compared to 
that kind of bucket of trouble. In the mid-90's I met a DOJ attorney 
who questioned me about a company with which I dealt which had 
fairly obviously set prices with a competitor causing a few billion 
dollars in overcharges to customers. I said yes, I knew about it, 
and was even present when one of their key executives bragged about 
it. He told me a few days later to tell me to forget about what he 
asked me and not to repeat what I had said. I asked him why. He said 
that his bosses told him that the company was not to be a target, 
that it had untouchable status. So these are the people and methods 
which brought us the Microsoft case. I wish your Mr. Charles James 
well in his current ``housecleaning'' of personnel and procedures. 
May it last beyond the current administration, and be resistant to 
political tendencies of whatever party is in the White House.
    Sincerely,
    Clay A. Bullwinkel
    President
    E.W. Bridge LLC
    70 Bear Gulch Drive
    Portola Valley, California 94028 USA
    tel. (650) 851-7421 fax (650) 851-0956
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00009234

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case. It is good for me, the 
industry, and the American economy.
    Ann Bobrow



MTC-00009235

From: Xavier Gu(00E9)rin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi!
    I'm a french BeOS developper, and I've decided to write this e-
mail in trying to be the most honnest I could never be. Micro$oft 
used to have some commercial technics punished by the antitrust law. 
It's not a fable, but those technics are so hided that they could 
appears like fables. M$ have encouraged the piracy (not in a visible 
manner, but I'll never believe that an entreprise able to develop an 
OS couldn't do better software protection), and in this way M$ 
killed his enemies. In fact, around 90's, someone who would buy an 
office suite was able to buy many different kind of suite (like 
lotus, corel ....). The question was althought : ``Hmmm, MS Office 
is really expensive.... I prefer buy Lotus Note''. Now, this 
question is totally different! ``Hmmm, MS Office is too expensive... 
No matter! I will burn it''. You follow?
    It's with this sort of technics that Microsoft win the OS and 
Offices suite market, and it's whith this sort of technics that 
Micro$oft killed our beloved BeOS.
    Thank you for your attention, and do the justice like the USA is 
knowed pretend to do it : in the better way.
    Friendly,
    Xavier Guirin.



MTC-00009236

From: Rick Connell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:50pm
    I am an average citizen. Not affiliated with Microsoft in any 
way. I feel that this whole anti-trust lawsuit is stupid. In our 
efforts to have a level playing field we have doomed those that 
would excel. Is it accurate that in our country it is alright to try 
and to succeed mildly, but not to compete? We as a nation have taken 
a thought or a notion and, as usual, distorted and perverted it to 
an embarrassing degree in order to perpetuate what we at one time 
thought was right. So now this noble notion is a bloody sledgehammer 
robbing from us what is truly rare. A company that can operate dept 
free. That contributes to our economy, instead of drains it...how 
sad.
    Rick Connell
    San Angelo, Texas



MTC-00009237

From: Doug Gorman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ...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.
    dg



MTC-00009238

From: Sharon Corboy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  2:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I find it difficult for state attorney generals carrying on a 
political war against Microsoft. this case should be settled and 
now. each one of these a.g. have a political motive. to further 
there on futures. if they want to carry on they should do so at 
there on expense. please get on with the job of a quick settlement 
Thomas corboy 3921 forest beach n.w. gig harbor wash.



MTC-00009239

From: Cameron Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:04pm
Subject: Help

[[Page 25129]]

    Microsoft has done more good for the nations economy than all 
government employees and officers combined. Microsoft should be 
praised not published or investigated for it accomplishments and 
valuable products it has created for consumers.
    Cameron Taylor
    Executive Director
    NFTPAP
    1-800-375-2453
    1-801-374-1287 fax
    2230 N. University Pkwy Bldg 5
    Provo, UT 84604



MTC-00009240

From: John Weis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It's about time to get this settled and stop interfering with 
the capitalistic version of voting with your feet.
    If Microsoft were not the consumers choice they would not be the 
success that they are. Stop harrassment now let the consumer decide.



MTC-00009241

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:12pm
Subject: Settlement is called for
    Gentlemen:
    It is important to the economy to get this thing settled. I feel 
that Microsoft has been harrassed enough and only because some 
people are jealous of its huge success. I do not see how marketing 
one's product can be unfair in the first place. I am sure no one had 
a gun held to their head! But prolonging this very unfair affair 
hurts everyone from the consumer to the employees, not only of 
Microsoft, but other companies as well. I feel personally, that this 
case should never have happened in the first place.
    Dorothy A. O'Flaherty
    Enumclaw, Wa.



MTC-00009242

From: Humphrey, Robert J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  3:10pm
Subject: Another MA Bell
    Seems like every time someone builds a better mouse trap the 
government steps in to take it away or makes them re-design it. Bill 
Gates simply built a product that became so good that no one wanted 
what the other guys were offering. And the other guys started 
crying.
    Bill Gates has returned far more to society than he every took 
away.



MTC-00009243

From: Max
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear DOJ:
    A dilute remedy to the case (as initially proposed) goes beyond 
erosion of our justice system. Microsoft is imparting a continuous 
flow of damage on Information Technology--damage that has already 
impacted individuals like you and me.
    Their history shows clearly that any ``Go Forth and Sin No 
More'' resolution will be laughed at within the Company. Moreover, 
any resolution that requires a new Federal Agency to monitor their 
behavior will place a new burden on the Taxpayer.
    Is the Taxpayer the rightful bearer of this burden ?
    Max Gratzl
    Engineer



MTC-00009244

From: Pierce, Ben
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs/madams,
    I have been following the Microsoft case for some time now. It 
has come to my attention that the Department of Justice has reached 
a settlement with Microsoft. After reading excerpts of this 
settlement I have come to the conclusion that this settlement is 
severely insufficient As was found by the Courts, and upheld in the 
appellate court, Microsoft is guilty of illegally maintaining a 
monopoly. A guilty verdict suggests that there would be a punishment 
for Microsoft that would try to curb its ability to commit this 
crime in the future. The settlement that was proposed does not do 
this. In fact, this settlement may encourage Microsoft to commit 
further illegal actions in order to create a more profitable 
corporation.
    Microsoft has a history of unethical business practices. I find 
it absurd that I am unable to purchase a PC from most mainstream 
manufacturer's without purchasing Microsoft Software. Not only is it 
impossible to purchase a computer without Microsoft Windows, but 
most computers are required to come with several other programs 
whose genre Microsoft has used it's monopoly to push it's way into 
as well, including: Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft Net meeting, and Microsoft Media Player.
    It is clear to see that in spite of the ruling of illegality, 
Microsoft is unwilling to curb it's appetite for using it's 
operating system to gain footing in many other facets of the 
software industry. In closing, I ask this court to throw out the 
settlement reached by Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
also ask the Court to let the Department of Justice know that any 
settlement that does not let Microsoft know that it will no longer 
be acceptable to maintain it's illegal and unethical practices will 
be unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time and attention,
    Benjamin Pierce



MTC-00009245

From: Dewey W. Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:24pm
Subject: American Company
    One truly American Company with roots of building the computer 
industry and providing a standard for the world should not be 
discredited by those who feel they were cheated a part of the pie. 
The truth is they did not have the products to compete.
    Dt



MTC-00009246

From: Heidi Blumenthal
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    microsoft doj comments lthd.doc>>
    January 7, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    I work closely with economic leaders and grassroots taxpayer 
activists across this nation and I must point out that these free-
market activists and leaders are virtually unanimous in their 
criticism of this trial.
    Conservatives do not believe the government should be writing 
software, or picking the winners and losers in this industry. They 
understand that this effort to regulate the software industry is bad 
for the economy and the free market. These tactics are an anathema 
to business executives who understand free and fair competition is 
what drives companies to create better products and keeps America in 
the forefront of the digital economy.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, and those of 
over 60,000 taxpaying activists.
    Onward,
    Grover G. Norquist



MTC-00009247

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a good for everyone except those seeking to 
obtain more benefit for themselves than for consumers at large.
    Since you are asking for opinions, I believe Microsoft is 
largely a victim of overzealous prosecution and a biased trial 
Judge. The only ones hurt by the settlement are the few state 
attorney generals who have not settled

[[Page 25130]]

for personal reasons (political gain) and Microsoft's competitors 
who, incidentally, conduct themselves the same as Microsoft.
    The Appeals Court should have given Microsoft a new trial. As a 
citizen the whole case shocked and troubled me. If I owned or 
operated a company and was accused of wrongdoing, I would expect, at 
a minimum, a fair and impartial trial and opportunity to prepare my 
case. Microsoft was given less than 6 months to prepare for trial, 
limited in its witnesses (although the trial judge said he would 
``consider'' any reasonable request) and was the victim of some 
seriously questionable evidentiary and procedural rulings at trial. 
Even car accident defendants get a more equitable trial and more 
opportunity to prepare in a state court action than Microsoft 
received in this Federal Court action involving billions of dollars 
and thousands of people. Why the trial Judge was biased against 
Microsoft will forever be a mystery but from his statements in and 
out of court the bias was obvious.
    Any wrongdoings (if any) by Microsoft are adequately addressed 
by settlement.
    The country and its consumers will benefit from this settlement. 
I urge the parties and the court to pursue settlement of the 
remaining claims on similar terms.



MTC-00009248

From: Louella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:35pm
Subject: RE: TUNNEY ACT
    My personal feelings in regards to the Microsoft settlement, is 
that enough is enough!! The settlement that has been made is 
agreeable to most and that should be sufficient.
    I, for one, am sick and tired of my tax dollars being squandered 
on merry little trifles while people in the U.S. are homeless & 
hungry. We pay taxes & then are supposed to help these causes with 
our donations!! Leave well enough alone!! Put our tax dollars to 
work for us constructively & STOP spending your time & our money 
trying to tear down!!!!!
    Just remember, we not only pay taxes......WE VOTE!! With the new 
awareness in America today, the goverment better hold on tight when 
it comes time for the next election!!!! You have spent millions so 
far getting to the settlement you now have w/ Microsoft, leave it 
alone........it should be a done deal!!
    Sincerely,
    LouElla B. Williams



MTC-00009250

From: james arnstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:40pm
Subject: 9 States vs Microsoft AntiTrust Case
    Dear Sir,
    I think the demands that the 9 states are attempting to place on 
Microsoft as punishment for their ``anti trust'' practices are 
ludicrous. The hidden corporate motives of various Microsoft 
competitors, all trying to disrupt and destroy Microsoft's market 
positions, are the real culprits. Let the consumer dictate what they 
want in the market place and not the attorney generals from the 9 
states trying to break up the business practices of Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    James Arnstein



MTC-00009251

From: Kinsella, Mary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Gentlemen: Bill Gates and his Microsoft team have revolutionized 
computer use. This is no small thing. Nothing in our world is the 
same thanks to the ease of use of the Microsoft products. I'm not 
saying there weren't any other important players because there were, 
however, in my view Microsoft was the absolute catalyst for it all, 
the information highway, the information age, the whole ball of wax. 
Rather than penalizing them over nitpicky stuff, we should really be 
giving Gates and his cohorts some kind of award. Bill Gates and 
Microsoft have changed the way we work, the way we live. Another 
plus which hasn't yet been acknowledged or reached fruition is that 
there are innumerable people who previously couldn't even type, 
didn't know a keyboard from a calculator, who are now clicking away, 
traveling the information highway, finding useful information, 
planning their life events, and without intending to becoming 
proficient at keyboarding and absorbing way more information than 
they realize. Their life skills and possibly job skills are 
improving due to the prolific distribution and reasonable pricing of 
Microsoft products, not to mention the 'free' added in products like 
Microsoft Internet Explorer and Microsoft Photo Editor. I've never 
heard one real (from the horses mouth) story about Microsoft people 
being coercive in fact I've heard just the opposite. It's my humble 
opinion that the law and the DOJ is being manipulated by Microsoft's 
enemies who will use you as a cat's paw to destroy the man, Bill 
Gates, who may be the greatest mind of our time. Many years ago a 
poet said he had seen the best minds of his generation destroyed by 
madness. I'd have to say I see the best mind of my generation being 
destroyed by jealousy and concerted legal malice. Please note that 
this is my personal opinion only, and not necessarily the opinion of 
my employer. May God's own wisdom aid you in making your decisions 
in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Mary T. Kinsella
    22 Rockhill Street
    Foxboro, MA 02035



MTC-00009252

From: Robert Pretlow, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    I am a pediatrician, and I manage two humanitarian health 
websites for children, one for bedwetting at http://
www.wetbusters.com, and one for overweight children at http://
www.blubberbusters.com. Approximately 60,000 children per month use 
the two sites. There are an estimated 7 million children with 
bedwetting in the U.S. and 15 million overweight children. These 
websites allow children affected with bedwetting or obesity to learn 
about their problem and to anonymously interact, via chat rooms, 
with other children affected with the same problem. There are social 
stigmas attached to these conditions, and chat rooms allow the 
children to interact in a way not possible in face-to-face life.
    Both of these sites use Java software (Sun Microsystems) for 
educational applications and for chat rooms. Again, chat rooms are 
highly valued by children with socially stigmatized conditions 
because of the anonymity of chat rooms. There is no other chat room 
software comparable to Java. Java also allows monitoring of the chat 
rooms to insure child safety. Previous versions of Microsoft Windows 
have included Java, but Microsoft Corporation has now decided to no 
longer include Java with their new version, Windows XP. Therefore, 
to use our chat rooms and educational areas, children with Windows 
XP computers must now first download Java, a process that is 
complicated and time consuming (15-20 minutes with a 56K modem). 
Moreover, with typical 56K dialup access, the connection may be 
interrupted before the download is completed.
    Below is an email from a 12-year-old boy with bedwetting (who 
uses the wetbusters site):
    Subject: hi
    Date: Thu,  1 Nov 2001 20:08:30 EST
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    i have the new windows XP and i can't get in the room it say i 
don't have a java browser. what do i do.
    Tony
    Subsequent emails from this child indicate that neither he nor 
his family is unable to understand how to download Java:
    no i did not down loda it because it did not ask me if i want to 
down load the java browser.
    Tony
    mom and dad had to get a computer guy to put a java browser on 
my computer. the computer guy loaded netscape so i could have a java 
browser on my windows XP.
    Tony
    Children using America Online with Windows XP do not receive a 
screen message that they must download Java. Moreover, if they are 
able to download Java, they are no longer able to use Java 
applications in AOL's browser environment. They must now use 
Microsoft Internet Explorer or install Netscape Navigator.
    I have also been in the process of creating an interactive 
website for children with asthma, of whom there are 20 million 
children in the U.S., and who have the same social isolation issues 
as children with obesity and bedwetting. I have, however, currently 
abandoned the children's asthma site because of the Windows XP Java 
issue. I feel that Microsoft's decision to no longer include Java in 
the Windows operating system constitutes a significant hardship for 
thousands of users. Even though I have been a substantial Microsoft 
stockholder since its initial public offering, I feel that the lack 
of Java inclusion in Windows XP places an

[[Page 25131]]

unfair barrier for users of chat rooms and other Java applications.
    Because Microsoft is allowed to have a monopoly on the PC 
operating system, I feel that Microsoft has a responsibility to not 
abandon consumers. Microsoft should therefore be required to include 
Java with the Windows operating system.
    Thank you for your time and consideration of the above matter.
    Yours truly,
    Robert A. Pretlow, MD, FAAP
    eHealth International, Inc.
    5406-K Lake Washington Blvd. N.E.
    Kirkland, WA 98033
    phone: 425-827-3719



MTC-00009253

From: Henry Sharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:55pm
Subject: proposed settlement
    I am disappointed that our government has not proceeded with 
serious action against Microsoft's anti-trust suit. Microsoft 
continues to flout the government and run their monopolistic 
practices and the justice department is doing nothing to stop them.
    Harriet Sharp
    1165 Harbor Hills Drive
    Santa Barbara, CA 93109



MTC-00009254

From: Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have designed industrial intruments and other products since 
1970. As an independent consultant, it is necessary for my work to 
be installed and read by my customers' systems. So, I struggle to 
stay in business because I cannot afford the continual drain on my 
time and physical energy that results from Microsoft's periodic 
Operating Systems woes and planned product obsolescense. At the same 
time, I cannot provide reports and data to my clients unless I 
continue to remain up to date with my Microsoft software.
    For the record, I started using Microsoft when it was Windows 
3.1. I have changed to the next version reluctantly, and only at the 
point in time when Microsoft refused to continue its support of the 
prior product. That migration path wound through Windows 3.10, 
3.10a, Windows 95, NT3.51, and NT4.0. I stare into the near future 
with dread: Windows XP is not for me, but I don't know what else I 
may be able to do. At each change, Microsoft collects more money. 
With each version, I spend no less than 100 hours getting my 
equipment to work again, sometimes finding that a printer (or other 
decvice) is no longer ``supported'' by Microsoft's latest product 
and must be replaced.
    Mr. Gates is a pioneer. His company has found a method by which 
he can deliver a product that isn't finished yet, charge more for it 
than it will ever be worth, and have his quality assurance testing 
conducted by paying customers. The only partial success I have 
enjoyed is that I have avoided using Internet Explorer or Microsoft 
Outlook. Even without all those security problems (read, design 
defects), other Microsoft products have consumed far too much of my 
time and patience.
    The existing settlement seems to me a bald faced sellout. I 
would like to see my government (Federal as well as State) do more 
than cower uncertainly before such a large potlitical contributor . 
. . who also happens to have been guilty of breaking the law. I 
would sincerely hope that we may find a restored balance in our 
priorities: it is an old principle of law that one who abuses the 
law should not benefit from that abuse. I would love to see that 
attitude regain its earlier vitality.
    David E. Myer, Sr.
    Vice President
    Crow Feather Ent., Inc.
    Innovation & Intellectual Property



MTC-00009255

From: Mader, John
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  3:55pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I feel that if the present settlement is allowed to stand 
(Microsoft allowed to continue shipping their applications bundled 
with their operating system) the consumer will have to pay the cost 
of mitigation. With the clout that the operating system gives 
Microsoft they will be able to move into any lucrative software 
market after other firms develop those markets. This pattern is very 
evident (i.e. Java, Palm, Sun). Eventually most of the other players 
will be pushed out of the market, and Microsoft will be successful 
in creating a barrier to the software market. This loss of 
competition will not serve the interest of the American people. I 
ask the court to break Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
    John Mader
    10228 Gatemont Circle
    Elk Grove Ca. 95624



MTC-00009256

From: john was
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:02pm
Subject: stop it already
    Please stop this travisty of justice. Enough is enough of this 
capitalism hating antitrust law suit. I my self am not wealthy and 
probably wont ever be but I dont begrudge someone who has the where 
with all to achieve what microsoft has done. Show some common scence 
and put and end to this garbage once and for all.



MTC-00009257

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:01pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    LET'S SETTLE THIS STUPID ATTACK ON MICROSOFT NOW.



MTC-00009258

From: Bill Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:02pm
Subject: comments on microsoft judgement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC: Dennis Powell, Steve Coe,Tony Charoen,Laurence Hunt...
    Gentlemen:
    First, I'd like to thank you for allowing this period of 
``public comment'' on the Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement. I have 
taken the liberty of cc'ing a few of my closest friends scattered 
``hither and yon'' around the globe as well as a ``Linux Columnist'' 
because I think this really is an International, as well as very 
important, issue that should not be restricted to the views of a few 
people, or to ``Americans Only.'' I suppose an appropriate beginning 
would be to talk a bit about my qualifications. First and foremost I 
am not an attorney. I am a ``computer professional'' with over 20 
years of experience of all kinds in the ``computer industry'' and 
have worked on equipment ranging from mainframe computers (using 
punched cards as input and output) to stand-alone and networked 
PC's. I have a BBA in Computer Information Systems (Cum Laude) from 
National University in San Diego, CA from 1985. And an AS in Data 
Processing from San Diego City College. Since the fall of 1980 when 
I began classes at San Diego City College I have worked on many 
different types of hardware, and used many different Operating 
Systems. Back in the early 80's the world of the PC was still a 
``wild and wooly'' kind of place. Many OS's and computer hardware 
philosophies existed to provide an environment where the end user 
had an incredible amount of choice. I have, as a computer 
professional, essentially ``grown up'' along with the PC. I have 
watched the hardware side of things advance rapidly from the 
``turbo'' PC XT clone of my first system (10 MHz!), 640KB RAM (which 
according to Bill Gates at the time 'should be enough for anybody') 
and no hard drive at all to the situation today where a 1 GHz 
processor and 128MB of RAM (and a 20GB hard drive) is considered 
routine. I have watched as the business world embraced PC technology 
with open arms. To make them ``more productive'' and to cut costs 
(as compared to mainframes). I have watched while the PC was 
``standardized'' to be a ``Microsoft-Only'' machine in so far as the 
OS and most applications suites are concerned. I have seen, for more 
than two decades now, the kind of company Microsoft is, and the kind 
of business practices that they consider to be ``acceptable'' I find 
to be so abhorrent I will do almost anything to avoid putting money 
into their pockets. Unfortunately, as a ``computer professional,'' I 
find myself, more often than I'd like to think about, in the 
situation of having to recomend and then support Microsoft products 
because of the almost universal perception that ``the Microsoft Way 
is the Only Way'' and most companies will not even consider anything 
else. Even now.
    There have been ``alternatives'' to Microsoft products all 
along. Back in the days of MS DOS there were products such as CP/M, 
4DOS, and DR-DOS. But one thing Microsoft has always been a master 
at. Marketing.
    They managed to convince the PC makers to include the MS DOS OS 
with every new system sold. Once PC's started being sold with hard 
drives installed it was even easier

[[Page 25132]]

to do this as Microsoft went to the companies (politely at first, 
the strong-arm stuff came later) and managed to get them to sign 
``exclusive'' agreements with Microsoft.
    These ``exclusive'' agreements meant that NO competitors OS 
software (or applications software for that matter) could be 
installed on any system sold. And of course, you could not sell a PC 
with NO OS installed.
    According to Microsoft this was to ``stop piracy'' but in 
reality it was a ploy to make Microsoft, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and 
all the rest of them so filthy RICH that it is more than obscene. 
How ``powerful'' is Microsoft? Consider the case of OS/2 and IBM for 
an answer to that. IBM is hardly what one could consider a ``small 
company'' and easily pushed around by anybody. According to 
documents published already from the DOJ's Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Trial even a company the size of IBM was ``forced'' to sign 
``exclusive agreements'' with Microsoft to include a copy of Windows 
95 with every PC sold, or not have a ``license'' to sell Windows 95 
at all. If a company the size of IBM has ``no choice'' then the rest 
of the software and computer industry is pretty well screwed isn't 
it?
    Today, Microsoft has a lot of very real competition. This is as 
it should be. For server and other ``back office'' applications 
Linux is ``kicking tail'' and that's only going to improve. However, 
if the U.S. Government ``gives in'' to Microsoft on this Anti-Trust 
Settlement, and you need to understand that the view ``from the 
street'' is that you are doing EXACTLY that very thing, then 
Microsoft is going to go on, just as before, and absolutely NOTHING 
will have been gained from the long, and expensive, anti-trust 
trial.
    Red Hat Linux http://www.redhat.com> has offered to take the 
proposal that Microsoft provide it's OS and apps software to the 
``14,000 poorest U.S. School Districts'' one better. They have 
offered to take the money that would have been spent for the 
Microsoft OS and apps software, and use that to invest in more 
hardware for the schools instead.
    The money can be used to provide a rather substantial increase 
in the number of computers provided to the school districts. Red Hat 
has agreed to ``provide Open Source solutions'' which include Red 
Hat Linux and any applications needed (perhaps the Star Office 
suite--a ``worthy replacement'' for MS Office in every way) and this 
will be something that is not going to require going back in a few 
years to ``upgrade'' all of those systems because the OS and 
applications software licenses will have expired.
    Open Source is about Freedom. Freedom of Choice in just about 
everything. Linux is an excellent and probably the best known 
example of this. The Linux Kernel is ``hacked'' (coded) by people 
all over the world. It all flows through a small group of people 
(including Linus Torvalds, the creator) who ensure that there is 
``control'' over what gets put in, what doesn't, and to ensure a 
central place to keep track of what bugs yet need squashing.
    With Linux, you can run at the command line, or under X Windows 
(a graphical environment or GUI). If you run X Windows you then have 
a plethora of ``environments'' to choose from and run. GNOME or KDE 
(both quite legitimate competitors to the MS Windows environment) or 
perhaps a ``light weight'' Window Manager such as IceWM (my personal 
favorite) or the well-regarded Enlightenment Window Manager.
    The point is that with Linux, and with Open Source, you get a 
tremendous amount of choice ``built-in'' and it has always been 
there. With Microsoft the only ``choice'' you get is to open your 
wallet, when they tell you to, and to pay them what they tell you 
to, or to not use their products. If everyone else is using their 
products this can be ``a bit of a problem'' to put it politely. 
There are other issues as well. One of the things keeping Linux from 
being even more widely accepted than it already is has to do with 
the fact that when the consumer goes to buy a PC it is REQUIRED--
still--to have a Microsoft OS on it. The consumer is not told how 
much of the cost of the system is due to the OS. The consumer is not 
told that they have any choice in the matter at all.
    This needs to be changed, dramatically. Ideally when a consumer 
walks into a computer store he would be shown ``that system in the 
window'' advertized for $499 and then it would go something like 
this:
    Salesman: OK sir, we need to discuss how you'd like your system 
setup. What OS would you like?
    Customer: What do you have available? What's the cost? What's 
included?
    Salesman: We have Windows XP, Red Hat Linux, or you can get the 
system with no OS at all and install whatever you'd like when you 
get home.
    If you want Windows XP that would add $150 to the price for the 
``home'' version, and $250 for the ``professional'' version. We can 
install it for you free. You won't get a CD. And that includes no 
``office'' or ``development'' software. If you want to add that we 
can discuss your needs so I help you with that. Also, you will have 
to go to Microsoft to get your OS ``activated'' after it's 
installed. You have 30 days to do that or it stops working.
    If you want Red Hat Linux (the Deluxe Boxed set) it will add 
about $80 to the price. Red Hat Linux comes with 6 CD's containg the 
OS, the Source Code for that, and a host of applications software of 
all types. We can also install that for you for free.
    Also, you need to know that, by default, the system has a ``win-
modem'' installed. What that means is that it will only work with a 
version of the Windows OS. If you want a ``real'' modem that will 
work with any OS then we have an internal 56K modem for $50 and an 
external for $120.
    Customer: I never realized before how expensive it was to have 
Windows! What's the deal with this modem that won't work with 
anything else? That doesn't sound right to me. How hard is it to use 
Linux? Do you have classes for that?
    Salesman: Yes sir, it can be kind of expensive to run Windows. 
The ``win-modem'' is a cheap modem that uses ``software'' to do part 
of the job ``hardware'' used to do routinely. It uses about 15% of 
the system resources to do that on average. It is much cheaper 
though at only $25 instead of $50 for the internal modem.
    Linux can be kind of difficult to learn at first. But yes sir, 
we do have classes in Linux. We can also discuss what your needs are 
going to be and we can do all the installation and almost all the 
setup of it here in the store for you. Just like Windows.
    Once it's installed and properly configured Linux is really no 
more difficult to run than Windows is. I think you'll find many 
things to like about Linux once you give it a try.
    So what would you like to do sir?
    Customer: I think I'll take the Red Hat Linux, installed, and 
the external modem as well. And I'd like to talk about getting some 
of those classes you mentioned.
    Salesman: Yes Sir! I think you'll be happy with the choice 
you've made. Let's talk about getting you scheduled for some of 
those Linux user classes. Would evening or on the weekend better 
suit your schedule?
    In an ideal world, this is what would happen. I've used Red Hat 
Linux as an example only. Could just as well be SuSE, Debian, 
Slackware or Mandrake Linux. Or something from another OS maker. 
BeOS. FreeBSD. or a host of others.
    I think that if Microsoft is ``punished'' by putting their OS 
and applications software into the 14,000 poorest school districts 
in America then they are not actually being punished at all. The 
school districts are now pawns in a ploy to get Microsoft on every 
school desktop in America. If Red Hat Linux is taken up on their 
offer to substitute Open Source applications and OS software there 
is going to be, of necessity, an absolutely vital long-term benefit 
to this nation, and the world, that no one seems to realize. The 
students are going to be exposed at an early age to the ``Open 
Source Attitude'' and that is something worthwhile in my opinion.
    Also, if you go to Linuxdot.Org http://www.linuxdot.org> you'll 
find a couple of columns I've written. One of them, on ``OS 
Arrogance'' I think it is, has a link to an article where a 
description of the School System of Mexico choosing to use ``Open 
Source'' and how that has gone so far. Personally, I think that if 
``Open Source'' and Linux is ``good enough'' for the schools in 
Mexico then it is surely ``good enough'' for the Public Schools in 
the United States as well. In a world where ``the 'net'' is almost 
everywhere, it is important that this ``punishment'' of Microsoft be 
seen in the larger context that it is actually a part of. The World 
Community. Not just the United States. For something of this 
magnitude ``national borders'' are irrelevant. Left unsaid until now 
is the absolutely horrific ``security'' aspects of just about any 
Microsoft OS or application you'd care to name. To call the quality 
of Microsoft's products ``shoddy'' is about as accurate as 
describing ``gang rape'' as ``an amusing Saturday evening 
diversion''. Microsoft released Windows 2000 to the world with a 
list of ``known bugs'' that totaled over 67,000. This is what they 
``knew about'' and released anyway. Microsoft doesn't really care 
about security. All they care about is money.
    Want proof? Do like I did. Subscribe to a few internet mailing 
lists on security issues (like the one from CERT) and you will find 
again and again ``exploits'' against Microsoft products. Microsoft 
products keep the ``anti-virus'' makers in business all by 
themselves.

[[Page 25133]]

    Microsoft, even when someone takes the time and trouble to 
describe to them EXACTLY what the exploit is, how to use it, and (in 
many cases) how to ``plug the hole'' simply can not be bothered to 
even respond to the person letting them know. Let alone actually 
taking the time and trouble to work on making ``security'' holes 
disappear in their products. In the Linux world of course things are 
different. Linux, like any other OS or application, has it's own set 
of problems. Linux though, since it's ``Open Source'' has a huge 
advantage. Anyone that wishes to can take the source, fix a bug they 
found, and submitt that back to the ``Linux Community'' at large 
almost instantly.
    In practical terms this means that when an ``exploit'' is 
discovered in Linux there is a ``fix'' available for it in a matter 
of only a couple of days. Many times, it's available in a matter of 
hours. Word is put out on where to get it, and how to install it. 
Almost before most people even knew that there was ``a problem'' it 
has already been fixed.
    Microsoft, on the other hand, quite routinely takes weeks or 
months to ``fix'' whatever security hole we are talking about. If 
they do so at all. Many of the people that write virsuses to 
``attack'' Windows do so because Microsoft has quite routinely 
ignored these problems in the past. If you have a ``known exploit'' 
that has been around for months and you know that Microsoft is not 
about to take one minute of their time, or spend one dollar of their 
money, fixing something like that then it becomes ridiculously easy 
to have something like the ``Melissa'' Virus spreading like wildfire 
all over the world.
    If Microsoft is forced to compete on an equal basis with 
everyone else then Microsoft is going down the tubes, in a hurry, 
because Microsoft has never in it's life tried to compete on an 
equal footing with anyone and wouldn't have the slighest idea how to 
go about doing that. ``Freedom of Choice'' is one of the Open Source 
Credo's. Unspoken or not. Let's make it the ``rule of law'' so far 
as Microsoft is concerned as well please. I'd like to close with a 
short bit about ``standards.'' Both the ``real'' and the 
``Microsoft'' variety. ``Real'' standards of course are just that. 
Standards that a majority of knowledgeable people from around the 
world have agreed on ``yes, this is how this will work'' and 
everyone knows that this is how things will work.
    ``Microsoft'' standards are standards because Microsoft says so. 
Microsoft is an ``old pro'' at taking ``real'' standards, like XML, 
and ``improving'' it. Microsoft's idea of an ``improvement'' however 
usually is along the lines of ``it only works with Microsoft 
products'' now. I recently read a bit of news where the Opera web 
browser was not able to connect to a portion of the MSN.com site 
unless it was configured to tell the server it was ``Internet 
Explorer.'' Opera allows you to ``tweak'' many things. Including how 
to present itself to the web server. So long as ``I.E.'' was 
selected Opera users could access anyplace on the site. When it was 
telling the server that it was, in fact, Opera, a cryptic message 
about ``upgrading your browser'' and quite specifically mentioning 
I.E. was displayed instead.
    Microsoft claims that it was ``an accident'' and it was soon 
enough fixed. But it does much to show what the thinking of 
Microsoft is as regards the Internet, and standards for the 
Internet. I believe that Microsoft should be forced to adhere to 
standards that are really standards. I also believe that they should 
be forced to not only document their Windows API calls, but also to 
document their file formats. In particular their ``*.doc'' format. 
This is something that changes all the time. Also, Microsoft should 
be forced to document all the ``improvements'' they've made to 
``standards'' such as XML, and other Internet related ``standards'' 
that they have ``improved.'' As a company Microsoft wouldn't know 
``innovation'' if it came up and bit them. All they know is how to 
take ideas someone else had, put it in a pretty wrapper, declare it 
to be the result of ``years of research and development work'' and 
then expect people to pay whatever they decide to charge.
    We need to put a stop to this. If not for Microsoft and their 
decidedly ``anti-competitive'' nature the computing industry could 
be years ahead of where we are now. You have the power, and the 
opportunity, to make historic changes that will not only affect us, 
but indeed will affect most of the world in one fashion or another.
    Please do not ``roll over'' for Microsoft. No matter how much 
money, or how many lawyers they throw at you. Let's see ``justice'' 
actually be just that for a change.
    Thank you.



MTC-00009259

From: Don Bogart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  3:50pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Software Marketing Center, LLC
    4149 Winfield Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43220
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe that it was a tremendously important and beneficial 
decision for the Department of Justice to have settled the case 
against Microsoft. Having spent the past twenty years in the 
software business, I can attest to the positive impact that 
Microsoft and other innovative companies have had in contributing to 
the remarkable productivity gains which helped to generate a robust 
national economy for many years. Without this leadership and 
technological advantage, our country would be far less able to 
succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
    I think that the current settlement is fair to both sides. I was 
happy to learn that The State of Ohio is ready to settle the case. 
Further litigation and congressional hearings would benefit no one 
but Microsoft's competitors. I support the settlement, and hope to 
see it finalized soon.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Bogart
    President
    Software Marketing Center, LLC



MTC-00009260

From: Eberhard Hafermalz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:05pm
Subject: Settlement with MicroSoft
    Dear Sir/Madam
    Following a request by Helmar Rudolph who is part of the 
BeUnited Team and with whom a DOJ person has talked on January 4, 
2002, I would like to submit my views on what is necessary to remedy 
the damage done to the market for PC operating systems (OS) by 
MicroSoft.
    I am not a developer but a user of the BeOS, an alternative 
operating system widely acclaimed for its potential as a desktop OS. 
I would like to stress that the BeOS never has taken off as a widely 
used OS on the PC market. Not because it does not have the 
potential; there is publicly available numerous evidence to the 
contrary. The BeOS has died because computer makers were not allowed 
to pre-install this OS on their systems instead of or even alongside 
a MicroSoft OS, thus precluding a broad distribution. It is a known 
fact that computer makers declined the offer of Be, Inc., the maker 
of BeOS, to ship their machines with the BeOS pre-installed because 
this would invoke the respective punitive clauses in the licensing 
agreement they had with MicroSoft.
    Further, when installing a MicroSoft OS onto a computer already 
equipped with the BeOS (or any other OS), the MicroSoft OS wipes the 
so-called bootblock, resulting in the computer only booting into the 
MicroSoft OS afterwards. As is well known, MicroSoft OSs are prone 
to get unusable after a short period of time, requiring extensive 
maintenance which more often than not is easiest done by re-
installing the whole system. This obviously invokes the bootblock 
problem every time a re-install is conducted.
    These two issues alone make it almost impossible for the average 
computer user to (a) acquire a non-MicroSoft OS running computer, 
and (b) maintain a dual-boot system where one of the OSs is a 
MicroSoft one. The remedy for issue (a) would be to disallow 
MicroSoft in clear terms the use of any contractual clauses in their 
licensing agreements that restrict the decision of the computer 
maker on what OS, if any, to ship with the computer they 
manufacture.
    The remedy for issue (b) is to disallow MicroSoft the 
overwriting of the bootblock when Windows (or another MicroSoftware) 
is installed. This is technically possible by giving the user the 
choice which systems to boot into. Resolving issue (b) is in fact 
complementary to issue (a) for the reasons explained above; 
otherwise MicroSoft would be allowed to abuse their dominant market 
position by simply accomplishing at a later point in time what they 
have been denied at the manufacturer's stage: killing the competing 
OS on the same computer.
    In light of the MicroSoft strategy of the past, the above is not 
the only remedy I think necessary because it would only create a 
level playing field. MicroSoft would be allowed to maintain the 
fruit of their previous unfair competition practice. Thus it appears 
justified to require MicroSoft to cede proprietary information in 
areas where it has acquired a de-facto monopoly by way of

[[Page 25134]]

utilizing advantages from their unfair competitive behavior. Most 
importantly, this includes the ``office'' part of the company's 
business. MicroSoft Office is the standard because Office was 
pressed onto the consumer as ``part of Windows'', which--as well as 
the Internet Explorer--it is not. MicroSoft thus utilized the 
practice described above to eliminate any competitor in this 
software segment.
    In order for rival makers of office software to compete they 
need the information required to create translators, software add-
ons (``plug-ins'' in Windows-speak) that allow the competing 
software to import from and export files to MicroSoft Office (and 
other) formats. I would like to point out that in order to 
accomplish this it is not required that MicroSoft open their source 
code of Windows, MicroSoft Office, or any other software.
    Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that it is not 
only Windows, and MicroSoftware running on Windows, that needs to be 
included in a settlement. MicroSoft is already showing the same 
patterns of behavior as before in the market for handheld computers. 
Also they are obviously trying to delay any remedial action against 
the Windows monopoly in the desktop computer market until Windows is 
no longer their main productline. Any settlement that is to create 
and ensure a level playing field in the longer term not only needs 
to remove the Windows monopoly but at the same time include any 
future OS or, indeed, software MicroSoft might sell, be it ``.Net'' 
software, Windows CE/Stinger, or any other product.
    Finally, please revise your stance on the issue of MicroSoft's 
``giving away freely'' computers, software, and service for these to 
schools. This is no remedy but an opportunity. It will create a new 
market for the company. These days MicroSoft's power to abuse their 
position stems from the very fact that for most people the term 
``computer'' automatically means ``Windows'', i.e. MicroSoft. 
Letting MicroSoft ``make good'' for their abusive behavior by 
opening one of the few places where competing OS maker Apple still 
holds a better than insignificant market share would mean, as we say 
in Germany, to try to expel the devil with the Beelzebub.
    The fate of innovation is at stake. Innovation cannot come from 
a company that has been holding the monopoly for almost ten years 
now. There is much better, much more innovative software out there 
than MicroSoft one but it will never have a chance.
    Unless MicroSoft is forced to give it that chance.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Faithfully yours
    Eberhard Hafermalz



MTC-00009261

From: Accounting
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I support the microsoft settlement



MTC-00009262

From: Accounting
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft Settlement. Stop wasting taxpayers 
money. Microsoft has done more for computer technology than any 
other company in the world. Leave them alone.



MTC-00009263

From: Sara Peters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to settle the Microsoft case and let them get 
on with their business. This has gone on too long. I hope to read 
where a settlement has been reached and then that will be the end of 
this case.
    Sincerely,
    Sara Peters



MTC-00009264

From: Jason W Stiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am currently participating in worldwide network, orchestrated 
through beunited.org, that is working toward bringing BeOS or the 
equivilant back into the market place. There is however little hope 
for success of any alternative operating systems making headway on 
x86 (Intel) architecture if the following issues are not addressed:
    Open Office Suite file formats
    Win32 APIs
    Boot sector control through restrictive licensing
    Dual boot availability with predominant platforms
    It is commonly accepted among Operating System enthusiasts that 
BeOS was one of the most advanced, most promising, and at the same 
time most doomed operating system because of the inability to work 
with vendors to get the product to market. This was truely the 
demise of BeOS. Any settlement that allows any company to restrict 
what OS'es may or may not be installed by 3rd party hardware vendors 
and computer manufacturers would be simply forcing the fate of Be 
Inc and BeOS onto the next company that attempts to innovate in the 
OS marketplace. Further more, I think appropriate punishment of 
Microsoft should not come in the form of donations of hardware and 
software to schools, but rather it should include funding of 
Operating System research and development in the educational sector 
and no profit organizations. By taking advantage of and empowering 
the bright young minds our in country's high education instutions 
you would be fostering the same scenarios that led to the creation 
of Mosaic and the Netscape Browser and we all recognize how that 
changed the world.
    Thank you,
    Jason Stiles
    Associate Consultant
    CRM Alliance Services
    [email protected]
    cell phone # 270-303-8322
    home phone # 270-563-2403 v-
    mail # 804-327-4854



MTC-00009265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Further litigation should be denied for the following: --The 
Dept.of Justice reached a verdict and compensation agreed to by the 
party majorities. --To allow further litigation one has to only 
question the motives and rationale of the remaning few.--To pursue 
further litigation casts serious doubts on the credibility of the 
Dept.of Justice process and abilities of its hard working personel.



MTC-00009266

From: Muller, Thomas
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  4:34pm
Subject: Penalties
    I can't believe that you caved to the Microsoft monopoly and are 
allowing them to continue to rip the people off. They are 
overcharging the consumer for their operating system. They are 
subjecting us to operating systems that are full of defects, 
security flaws, and they are not being ``innovative'' as they claim 
to be. I hope the states that defected from your settlement are 
successful in braking the company up into at least two separate 
companies.
    Thomas P. Muller--Project Engineer
    [email protected]
    636.940.5281



MTC-00009267

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:25pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Gentlemen,
    As a business leader I personally feel we have taken up enough 
of the public time and capital in pursuing MS to the ends of the 
earth. The remaining state attorneys general must feel a need for 
job preservation (i.e. re-election) by endeavoring to keep this case 
in the public domain unendingly. Please in the interest of all 
concerned, particularily the consumer, put this to rest asap.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Weinzierl



MTC-00009268

From: Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:31pm
Subject: change is needed
    I think it is time to end Bill Clinton era anti-trust law abuse. 
Let's get on so the free enterprise system can produce jobs and 
financial assistance to the American people.



MTC-00009269

From: Kevin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    BlankThe purpose of this email is to communicate my complete 
dissatisfaction with the ongoing anti-trust case against Microsoft. 
While I have my complaints against Microsoft and its products, it 
seems inconceivable to me that the company would be litigated 
against for being a monopoly. This is simply ludicrous, in my 
opinion. In

[[Page 25135]]

fact, I believe this case has done tremendous harm to those in our 
community who take the risks and innovate. The outcome of this case 
applies to everyone, not just Microsoft.
    I don't know whether Bill Gates contributed to Bill Clinton's 
campaign or not, but it seems clear to me that this misuse of 
governmental power is abusive and harmful to the public and it is my 
strongest position that the case should be ended now with an apology 
issued to Microsoft for all the harm it has caused and another 
apology to the public for the waste of taxpayer dollars used to 
litigate this case. This applies to the states that continue to 
litigate as well. 
    Kevin Brown



MTC-00009270

From: Fran (038) Gene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:36pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT ?
    I think you should let them off at this point--just look at all 
the good they have done --- I couldn't have a computer if it wasn't 
for Microsoft ??
    Virginia
    Ralph Anderson
    [email protected]



MTC-00009271

From: Scott McLaughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    You have failed to prove your case. Drop it and stop wasting our 
money.
    Success is not a crime.
    Scott McLaughlin
    President
    MultiMedia Dental Systems, Inc.
    www.multimediadental.org
    877-770-8514



MTC-00009272

From: Guthrie Chamberlain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
    I am writing today to voice my opinion on the Microsoft 
Antitrust case. As an owner of a business that is part of the IT 
industry I feel this case has been dragging on for too long and it 
has hurt not only Microsoft, but also the entire IT industry. The 
government has no rights meddling in the affairs of independent 
business unless it is truly hurting consumers through unfair 
practices. This is certainly not the case with Microsoft who has 
facilitated computing technology to benefit the majority of the 
world's population. Productivity and creativity has been stifled and 
it is now showing in the marketplace. Our economy has grown so much 
in the past two decades, due mainly to Microsoft and other key 
companies providing innovative products to the general consumer.
    I have firsthand experience dealing with Microsoft, as I work as 
a Systems Integrator, creating and installing networks. Their 
products have made our business run, as well as the majority of our 
clients. As Microsoft experienced problems due to these lawsuits, so 
have we and it has affected the entire economy. I feel part of the 
recession that we are now experiencing is due to these lawsuits. I 
ask that you please take the public's concern into consideration and 
help put an end to the lawsuits. Additionally, I hope that remaining 
nine states can come to quick settlements, without further scrutiny 
from the government.
    Sincerely,
    H. Guthrie Chamberlain, III
    501 Chamberlain Drive
    Marietta, OH 45750
    Guthrie Chamberlain
    President
    Eagle Technologies Group, Inc.
    [email protected]
    www.eagletgi.com
    740.373.9729 x101



MTC-00009273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The 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.
    Please don't let special interests groups defeat the public 
interest.
    Best regards,
    Don Hepperle
    Phone: 541-548-3354
    Mailto: [email protected]



MTC-00009274

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:59pm
Subject: public comments on MS case
    Dear Justice Department,
    I have been following the government's misguided lawsuit against 
Microsoft. I have been a Microsoft user ever since I started using 
computers and I don't like the way the government has been attacking 
them.
    In the first place, I like the way Microsoft bundles software. I 
think it's a big headache to purchase everything separately and then 
try to figure out what will work with what. Microsoft already does 
that for me; they perform all of the compatibility computations and 
work out most of the bugs before the product ever gets to me. I call 
that ``good service.'' That's why I purchase Microsoft products.
    In the second place, I have rarely (if ever) had a problem 
adding programs to my Microsoft operating system. I realize that 
there is a learning curve with new software and it may take me a 
while to figure it out; but that is not Microsoft's problem, nor is 
it the government's problem. Using Microsoft's operating system has 
NOT prevented me from using competitor's products. As I observe this 
case, I feel that any remedy that the Federal government proposes 
will probably cause me a big headache. It is not the government's 
job to work against the best interests of its citizens ... including 
me. This case should have been dropped a long time ago. In reality, 
it was nothing more that a witch-hunt proposed by President Clinton 
when he discovered that he couldn't shake-down Bill Gates for 
campaign contributions. In conclusion, I strongly urge you to drop 
this case totally.
    God Bless America.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Max Effort
    21609 Cedar, St. Clair Shores, MI 48081
    Phone: 586-779-2028
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00009275

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:00pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    Gentlemen:
    I want to take this opportunity to say that I support Microsoft 
in this lawsuit brought by the federal government. This is in direct 
conflict to everything Americans hold dear. Our freedoms have been 
encroached upon too long and it is time for this nonsense to end.
    Thank you very much.
    Hilma Storz
    739 Edgebrook
    Houston, TX 77034
    [email protected]



MTC-00009276

From: Eleanor McCabe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:04pm
Subject: Stop the antitrust suit
    It is time to stop the waste in continuing the antitrust suit 
against Microsoft. It is not needed with all the more important 
cases for the Justice Department to bring to trial.



MTC-00009277

From: Glenn and Wanda Trapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I want to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust.
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Sincerely,
    Wanda Trapp
    Rt. 4, Box 327
    McAlester, Ok 74501
    [email protected]



MTC-00009278

From: Michael P Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:05pm
Subject: Federal Gov't Settlement..
    The settlement is a fair one and all States should accept it as 
being a reasonable solution to a very complex problem... We

[[Page 25136]]

ought to squash further litigation and get on with the job of 
growing American Technology...Let Microsoft get back to 
work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Michael P Parker
    Retired IBM Exec
    Avid user of PC software



MTC-00009279

From: bobhague
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:08pm
Subject: Microsoft fiasco
    Sirs/Ms:
    It's time to end this travesty of justice. Bill Gates has done 
more for this country and the economy than William Jefferson did to 
it, yet Honest Bill got off scot free while you waste time and money 
persecuting a true American. It's time to go after the real 
criminals, Clinton-Clinton, Gore and Reno.
    Get on with it!
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. Hague
    261 Lafayette Drive
    Roseville, Ca.



MTC-00009280

From: Larry Reich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge that this be done and over with, I support the Microsoft 
Settlement , Lawrence A. Reich 2445 Airport Rd. Eastman Ga. 31023



MTC-00009281

From: annie m. lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:07pm
Subject: microsoft
    i don't like bill gates, he is a dem. but i don't know what he 
did to them but LEAVE THEM ALONE. this has all been politacol. so 
drop it, annie lane, carthage, ms. 39051



MTC-00009282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:08pm
Subject: RE; MICROSOFT
    I AM WRITING TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE END THE CLINTON-era ANTI-TRUST 
LAW ABUSE AGAINST MICROSOFT. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ABUSE OF THIS FINE 
COMPANY THAT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD THIS ACTION BROUGHT IN THE 
FIRST PLACE.
    SINCERELY,
    HARRY HOLDING



MTC-00009283

From: gmewborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:10pm
    the govt and states and crying competitors need to get off this 
kick that microsoft is killing them. if they want to develop their 
own software operating system then go to it . everyone is jealous. 
microsoft should not stop others from doing there thing. I think a 
company can do whatever it wants to develop new products. you can 
buy or not buy. g.m.



MTC-00009284

From: Conley, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft case...
    Gentlemen....
    I think settling with Microsoft is a big mistake! They are, in 
fact, a monopoly...and should be divided into a systems company, an 
applications company...and an Internet company.
    When I can't buy a new computer without having Microsoft's 
operating systems installed on it... thats NO choice!
    Say NO to settlement!
    David F. Conley
    Citizens Communications
    5600 Headquarters Dr., #A2O14
    Plano, Tx 75024
    469-365-3467



MTC-00009285

From: Bud (038) Lyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse:
    After perusing information provided the public regarding the 
Microsoft Settlement, and not being a ``Wall Street Attorney'', I 
wish to encourage the Court to be equitable and fair in its ultimate 
decision regarding the Microsoft case.
    The Pacific Northwest, after September 11, has been feeling a 
domino effect from the tragedy that occurred in New York City. Our 
local NYSE and NSDQ stocks have suffered great losses, from which 
many will never recover. Granted, we are all in the same situation, 
but the State of Washington, on a daily basis, is losing high tech 
companies--just folding up, or consolidating out of state. Our 
unemployment rates are climbing rapidly with the loss of Boeing 
jobs, and frankly, the future for the State of Washington looks 
bleak.
    A blow to Microsoft would simply add to the recession our state 
and country is finding itself in. As a citizen of the United States, 
I do not wish to see more businesses punished to the point of 
extinction. Mr. Gates has done, and will do wonderful things for 
education, world peace, and the welfare of children, worldwide, if 
given the opportunity under our free enterprise system. He has 
stepped down from a very lofty and important position in his company 
to cooperate in this matter. My greatest fear is that he will lose 
interest in the company he started, and not have an interest in 
promoting new and innovative ideas that will benefit everyone, 
worldwide. The states involved in this lawsuit are stamping their 
feet like children, refusing to be reasonable for the sake of 
everyone, to prove that they are mightier than Microsoft, its 
management, and Mr. Gates. These states and the rest of our United 
States will end up the losers. We all need to cooperate to reinstate 
a healthy economy, where business can thrive, thus allowing us to 
deal with important issues facing us in the future.
    That future is now in jeopardy, and I wish to urge those who are 
charged with the decision in the Microsoft case, to take more than 
just the law into account. Real human beings, with families, 
mortgages to pay, children to educate, retirement to plan for, and a 
job to take pride in, is at stake.
    This is not a chess game, but real life, and I pray that you 
will do what is right for all, not just a few
    Thank you for listening to a citizen's opinion.
    Best Regards,
    Lyn Wessman
    [email protected]



MTC-00009286

From: John McClaughry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case is a long running embarrassment for Justice 
and damaging to the economy. The pending settlement is a reasonable 
conclusion. Please accept it, and tell the nine grandstanding AGs 
complaining about it to go chase some real criminals.
    John McClaughry, Ethan Allen Institute, Concord VT
    (I have no connection to Microsoft.).



MTC-00009287

From: Maher Saba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Congratulations on signing the settlement with Microsoft. I hope 
all the states will follow suite. I am writting to offer my support 
and hope that the judge approves the settlement as soon as possible.
    Thanks, Maher



MTC-00009288

From: Jean Galburt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse of Microsoft. 
Where would be all be technically if it were not for Bill Gates, his 
collogues and his company. His programs & operating system's are 
wonderful.
    Paula Jean Galburt



MTC-00009289

From: Frank Bankenbush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:54pm
Subject: Micro-Soft settlement
    Please end this foolishness.
    Let the marketplace adjust itself.
    Franklyn J. Bankenbush
    11409 Washington Ave. #10,
    Sturtevant, WI 53177
    262-886-9249



MTC-00009290

From: Steve Wersan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement, whichever way it turns out, 
will be a legal and business history landmark that will be pointed 
to by legal historians and business, academic, and government 
leaders for years to come.
    Antitrust laws were drafted precisely for the purpose of curbing 
and punishing the not-alleged-but-proven sorts of misbehavior 
committed by Microsoft. If the proposed, slap-on-the-wrist 
settlement is adopted, the conventional wisdom of the future will 
say

[[Page 25137]]

that this decision amounted to a judicial repeal of the antitrust 
laws, and initiated an era in which antitrust enforcement became a 
lapdog for egregiously monopolistic and avaricious businesses.
    Conversely, if the court rejects this pussycat settlement and 
moves toward the only logical and just consequence of these 
misbehaviors by ordering the breakup of Microsoft, it will be saying 
that this is still a country whose laws are fairly enforced and 
enforced all the time. It will also be said that this decision 
initiated an era in which the full power of the computer and the 
internet were liberated from the self-seeking domination of one 
company's restricted vision. ``Once to every man and nation comes 
the moment to decide ...''
    Dr. Stephen J. Wersan
    Ridgecrest, CA



MTC-00009291

From: pmckelvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:36pm
Subject: String'em Up
    Yesterday, I read in USA TODAY, that a VP at Microsoft had said 
that LUNIX was the next target. Microsoft keeps their code secret, I 
guess security by obscurity. LUNIX is out there for anyone to work 
on and improve. Even the National Security Agency has published code 
examples as ways to make a ``LUNIX'' system more secure. I expect 
Bill Gates to include the ``Universal Plug and Play'' in LUNIX, thus 
opening it up to the hackers. But the code will be proprietary so no 
one will know.
    Of great concern to me is the requirement that to do any kind of 
business with Microsoft, you have to have a Microsoft ``passport''. 
As I have read in the papers, Microsoft had to shut the passport 
system down for 24 hours because it had been hacked into.
    With the ``I Love you'' virus following the rising sun around 
the earth and catching people before they were expecting anything is 
not surprising. If there is one direct progenitor of something that 
is everywhere, such a spread can and will occur. We need different 
operating systems. How bad can it get.
    The Irish potato famine was caused by a bight. All the potatoes 
in Ireland were descended from one potato plant of very good 
qualities. But when the bight hit, there were no natural barriers to 
stop the blight. According to the accounts of the times, people were 
actually dying in the streets as the blight did it's work on what 
was genetically one plant. Potato Soup?
    Patrick C. McKelvey PE
    [email protected]
    3315 Ashwood Dr.
    Cincinnati, OH 45213-2437
    (o) 513-631-3486
    (h) 513-631-1221
    RA 11651752
    P.S. Probably 20 years ago, AT&T's Bell Labs had a auto license 
plate created. White background with green lettering reading 
``UNIX--Live Free or Die''.



MTC-00009292

From: Robert (q)Bob(q) Rood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice.
    I have followed the litigation and settlement issues with 
Microsoft over the last few years. To begin with, I have been quite 
upset over the handling of the case by the previous justice, and was 
extremely pleased that he was basically replaced. I am equally 
pleased that you apparently have arrived at a settlement with 
Microsoft. I believe this settlement to be in the best interest of 
the consumer. I still believe that as a consumer I was never hurt to 
begin with. I also believe that it is too bad that our justice 
system allows self serving companies and States to drag this matter 
on. Many of the concerns are from a few with products that were 
inferior to begin with. To allow this to drag on will hurt the 
consumer and product innovation.
    Please enter my request to end this case with the settlement 
between the DOJ and Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Robert J. Rood, 907 346 1563



MTC-00009293

From: Mark Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:39pm
Subject: Anti-trust Case
    To whom it may concern,
    I realize that many of you in the Bush administration are 
holdovers from the most corrupt administration to hold the office of 
President. I also realize that their probably remains a number of 
corrupt individuals who believe that all businesses should be 
sending large donations to the Democratic Party. (In addition to the 
foreign entities that bought legislation from Clinton) But, I 
request that you return the country to normalcy (ie Government not 
suing legal businesses because you want more cash to redistribute to 
the non-producers) That request includes any lawsuits against 
Microsoft, Gun Manufacturers, Tobacco Companies, Automobile 
Manufacturers.... All of this should cease immediately.
    Mark Palmer&
    Mark D. Palmer
    CC Dickson CO
    456 Lakeshore Parkway
    Rock Hill, SC 29730
    (803) 980-8000 Ext. 264



MTC-00009294

From: Bill Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:38pm
Subject: Settlement is Fair
    Sirs,
    This settlement is fair to both parties. As usual the only 
people who made out were the attorneys. Thanks for your 
consideration,
    Bill Sherman
    Spill 911, Inc
    800-474-5911
    www.spill911.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00009295

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft and our free enterprise system alone!
    Let the consumers decide in the marketplace which companies are 
the winners and which ones are the losers. I resent your 
interference in thinking you know better than us who have been in 
the information technology business for years.
    We are talking about a $99 operating system that nobody is 
forced to buy if they don't want it (the IRS takes much more than 
that away from me by the use of force and coercion and I don't get 
anything back in return). Consumers can always use the free 
operating system called Linux along with its free web browser. Any 
new features Microsoft puts into their operating system is purely 
for their own survival. Live and let live!
    I thank Microsoft for driving down prices so that the common 
person can understand and afford technology. If you punish them, 
then you are no better than a communist dictatorship which desires 
to own and control all business! The shame of it all is that 
Microsoft's competitors refused to offer better products at lower 
prices and instead resorted to government coercion and force. What a 
sad day for American liberty!
    If you are truly looking out for the consumers as you say you 
are then leave Microsoft alone! Answer this question--how many 
complaints have you heard from the consumers themselves (the very 
persons you claim to be protecting)?



MTC-00009296

From: Ben Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a computer user of both a Microsoft Operating System and a 
non-microsoft operating system that is trying to market itself as an 
alternative to the Windows line. So far, the operating system I 
favor (the BeOS) and others like it have had major roadblocks thrown 
in our facees due to Microsoft practices. The OS's I speak of run 
well with their own software, or with each other's software, , but 
have had a very difficult, if not impossible task of working with 
the Microsoft systems, which the majority of computer users use.
    If these other businesses are to be given the equal right to 
develop a product, Microsoft must be properly dealt with in this 
case. Microsoft's Office file formats cannot be used by non-
microsoft software and the Windows installer will not let me boot 
into my non-Windows OS, so I cannot try to develop software for the 
Operating System of my own choice. Many other hinderances placed by 
Microsoft prevent legitimate software developers from writing! 
software that people can use. Thank you for your efforts to rectify 
the issues at hand. I am not alone, users world-wide share my 
appreciation for your efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Allen
    [email protected]



MTC-00009298

From: Syd (038) Ron Corbett

[[Page 25138]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think we should be more concerned with stimulating the economy 
and encouraging innovation in business than with shackling 
creativity and entrepreneurism. Penalizing achievement will simply 
drive our businesses and economy down. Leave Microsoft alone--that 
way it can add to the economy with jobs.
    Sydney B. Corbett
    231 SE 45th Terrace
    Ocala, FL 34471



MTC-00009299

From: John T. Weisel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's put this one to rest, you've beat up on MS enough now, and 
we all got the message. Let's lay off now.
    John T. Weisel
    Sunriver, OR 97707
    Voice: 541-593-8201
    Fax: 541-593-7318
    ([email protected])
    Mail: 20 High Oak Drive, Medford OR 97504



MTC-00009300

From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To whom it may concern at the Justice Department,
    I support the Microsoft settlement as been proposed.
    This case needs to be put to rest and get on with more important 
issues.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Smith
    [email protected]
    423.743.5765



MTC-00009301

From: Marc H. Berblinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Stop wasting your time & our tax money on the Microsoft case.
    Marc Berblinger
    Registered voter
    San Diego, CA.



MTC-00009302

From: Del / Sue Chase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust.
    Get it over with!! It's questionable it should have been an 
issue anyway.



MTC-00009303

From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:01pm
Subject: End the Clinton-Era Anti-Trust law abuse.
    Enough is enough! We need to protect our brilliant 
entrepreneurs, not penalize them. Without these persons our 
employment opportunities go by the wayside.
    It is time to end the Clinton-era abuses!
    RJH



MTC-00009304

From: Gary Roush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:03pm
Subject: anti-trust law abuse opinion
    I want to state that I do NOT approve of what is going on with 
the States accusing Microsoft. Microsoft is merely trying to survive 
among the many rivalries and have already given a lot to the 
demands, more so than should be required. The rivalries and 
competitors as you can see are playing around with no ropes tied to 
them taking advantage of the opportunities to win unrighteously and 
unfairly, while Microsoft, of all the good they have done, have way 
too many ropes tied and this is unjust. Why penalize a company for 
being too good or for being too helpful? I want the Clinton-era 
Anti-trust law abuse to end and it should end now! Our tax money is 
being wasted by this type of trial.
    Gary Roush
    12712 7th Ave NW
    Seattle, WA 98177



MTC-00009305

From: volner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:05pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
    I think it time to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse 
against Microsoft. As a user of Windows I applaud Microsoft. There 
product are top of the line and I use them daily.
    Billy Volner
    3615 Pennsylvania Ave
    Mims, Fl 32754



MTC-00009306

From: Ethel Feyertag
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please stop this Microsoft case...how ridiculous. With all the 
real crime which took place in and around the White House, 1992-00 
[never prosecuted], and that among some senators/congressmen, how 
can they keep this up. I do not want our tax money spent going after 
Microsoft, and further, I think they deserve an apology.
    E. Feyertag



MTC-00009307

From: Joseph Shields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A few ywars ago now, i remember getting a CD free with an issue 
of PC Plus with a bootable demo of BeOS 4.5 on it. I instantly fell 
in love with the system, getting used to all the advantages it held 
over Windows, bemoaning only the lack of support for my 
(considerable) collection of Windows-only software and hardware.
    I proceeded to buy BeOS 5 Professional about a year later, to 
help do my bit to support a fantastic piece of software.
    However, I was most distressed to read online that the BeOS was 
officially dead. This is an extremely unfortunate state of affairs, 
and is solely down to strong-arm tactics carried out by the 
Microsoft Operating System monopoly.
    There is a large community at work, all of whom would like to 
see a viable update or evolution of the BeOS back in the 
marketplace. However, there are a number of factors which place 
Microsoft in a position which simply cannot be challenged now that 
their monopoly is in place.
    The Windows system itself is a closely guarded secret, and as it 
is unfair to expect software manufacturers to re-write a version of 
their software for every Operating System under the sun, the only 
alternative is for an Operating System to have built-in support for 
another. In this case, BeOS (or any one of a hundred other systems) 
could sensibly compete with the Windows monopoly if the core 
components of the source of Windows, the API-related functions 
(especiallythe DirectX API, the workhorse of Windows as a platform 
for playing videogames), were made availible. Lack of competition is 
bad for the consumer and bad for the economy. And leads to expensive 
anti-trust cases against monopoly-holders. Nobody wins.
    There is a small list of other potential issues:
    The leading office suite software, Microsoft Office, is, without 
a doubt, currently the best on the market. This cannot be disputed. 
However, there is no sensible way for companies to try to make a 
shot at trying to better Office, as the specifications for the 
Office files (.doc, .xls, .ppt etcetera) are ANOTHER guarded secret, 
and a business cannot afford to use software which cannot read or 
write files compatible with what the company down the road uses. I 
have personally experienced issues caused already by Microsoft's 
unneccessary changing of the specifications so that anybody who uses 
a recent version of the Office software must go to great lengths 
(losing much formatting information in the process) to be able to 
send documents to people with older versions. If you have Office 97 
and really want to exchange with colleagues, then you're looking at 
a 250 upgrade for the privilege. Take this scenario, and it gets a 
thousand times worse when files created in Word XP with any advanced 
formatting cannot be opened in a suite for a non-Microsoft-endorsed 
system such as Gobe Productive under BeOS. The file specifications 
for most formats (HTML for web pages, JPEG and GIF for images, ZIP 
for compressed files) have been open to everybody for years, and the 
buisinesses behind them have NOT suffered as a result. Making the 
Office formats mandatory is more than a good idea, it's a required 
action.
    The final suggested action is not rooted in Microsoft's 
monopoly, it's rooted in them being bastads and wanting to take 
advantage of their monopoly: When a new PC is shipped, Microsoft 
lisencing states that the reseller's lisence is void if the system 
isn't a ``clean'' Windows system. i.e. if the Reseller installed on 
it, say Windows 2000 Professional AND Mandrake Linux 8.1, the 
company loses its right to sell Microsoft-equipped machines and 
Microsoft will never speak to them again. Much as I've ranted, 
Windows is currently a requirement of a system you intend to use 
around the home.

[[Page 25139]]

Windows has been designed, hopwever, to stamp out any other 
operating systems it finds on your computer, If you have a working 
BeOS computer and install Windows XP, then it will remove your 
ability to run BeOS. The same applies for Linux, and any REALLY 
alternative system you could name-- Windows changes the Master Boot 
Record to disallow the running of other Operating Systems. Every 
other non-Microsoft operating system in creation provides a ``boot 
loader'', which provides a list of the Operating Systems availible 
on a computer when you switch it on, and all the systems in the list 
will co-exist happily. If you install a non-Microsoft system AFTER 
Windows, then it will put Windows in its list and the system will 
still work just as well. However, Microsoft simply do not ALLOW 
systems to include a dual-boot facility, which could threaten 
Windows as the user's operating sstem of choice. I'm pretty sure 
this lisence still covers the installation of any Internet Browser 
software other than Microsoft Internet Explorer (such as Netscape), 
as again that could pose a risk to Microsoft.
    Dual-booting is NOT hard to program. Only obstinance prevents it 
from existing (and being permitted) in Windows as default. This is a 
crucial issue which on its own could make Linux much more marketable 
(if not help BeOS if implemented in isolation).
    Thank you for (hopefully) reading through my $0.02, and I hope 
the comments are helpful and are taken into account. I am NOT one of 
the pure anti-Microsoft fanatics you find. I'm a fan of superior 
products. I use my Microsoft mouse and Joypad as they're the best 
availible. However, the strong arm tactics used by Microsoft for 
their Operating System and Office software is simply unfair.
    Yours sincerely.
    --Jo ``directhex'' Shields



MTC-00009308

From: Colleen Dunham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement and 15 U.S.C. 16
    Dear Madam or Sir:
    I have just returned from a long Christmas holiday. While I was 
away, family, friends, and other people engaged me in conversation 
about the Microsoft case. My conversations were with people from 
many walks of life in many parts of the country. I was surprised 
that so many people wanted to talk about the case and surprised that 
people outside of Microsoft have such strong feelings about the 
issues. All expressed some degree of approval of the Microsoft 
settlement for themselves, for the hi-tech industry, and for the 
American economy. None wanted to see additional litigation or 
further delay.
    Please consider my observation as the United States determines 
whether to settle this antitrust suit.
    Yours,
    Colleen Dunham



MTC-00009309

From: Tom Arlin Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:13pm
Subject: re: STOP
    The Microsoft trial has squandered millions of taxpayers' 
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to 
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, 
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers 
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the 
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    I believe this single act of heresy perpetrated by Bill Clinton 
and his lacky, Janet Reno, may well have been the catalyst for the 
recession we have experienced since and are still experiencing now.
    Tom Arlin Dean
    22204 Pepper Road
    Athens, AL 35613



MTC-00009310

From: enbcpa2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Dear Sir or Madam at the Justice Dept.:
    Microsoft has been a blessing bestowed to America, because that 
company's technology gave this country a great deal of productivity. 
The technological advances have been great and have been made 
available to everyone at a very low cost.
    I think that the American people would be well served by ending 
the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuses.
    Microsoft is good to our economy. These law suits are only good 
to the lawyers.
    Edgar N. Baquero, CPA
    1428 Heights Blvd.
    Houston, TX 77008
    Tel. (713) 869-5332
    Fax. (713) 869-8385



MTC-00009311

From: Daniel Berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS operating system back into the market place, but there is no 
hope of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    1) open MS Office file formats
    2) open Win32 APIs
    3) mandatory dual-boot options (i.e. multiple operating systems 
per computer)
    In addition, it is clear that Microsoft should be split into two 
parts--one for the operating system itself, and one for software 
(and any other non-operating system components). This will help 
reduce the advantage it's own software has on the MS Windows 
platform.
    On top of that, a huge fine for it's illegal and unethical 
strongarm tactics.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Berger
    Plymouth, MN



MTC-00009312

From: Rick Dassow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
    Dear Justice Department,
    As a consumer of software products, I would like to petition the 
Justice Department to break up Microsoft. I believe that Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices have severely limited the choices available 
to the end users. Additionally, I firmly believe that by tying the 
operating system and its software products together, Microsoft has 
not only limited consumer choice, but has also perpetuated the use 
of inferior software products in the marketplace. Without choices, 
the consumer is limited to using inferior software products, and 
does not benefit by natural innovation that comes about by companies 
competing in the marketplace. I would conservatively estimate that 
Microsoft has set the software development industry back 7-10 years.
    I hope that when the final decision is made, consideration is 
given to not only Microsoft's competitors, but also to how this 
large monopoly has effectively stagnated the advancement of the 
industry as a whole.
    Rick Dassow
    Senior Vice President FOUR SEASONS SERVICE GROUP
    303-367-1332



MTC-00009313

From: Dana Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:29pm
Subject: User opinion
    Gentlemen:
    As a user of the only available operating system, I am highly 
insulted by Microsoft's attitude. Windows is a monopoly because the 
software required for my appraisal business is simply not available 
for Apple or Linux. Not because Windows is a better environment, but 
because of Microsoft's predatory practices. I was employed by IBM in 
1961, thus am familiar with the Consent Decree signed by that 
monopoly. While I was loyal to the company, I was also familiar with 
the heavy-handed tactics employed which artificially maintained that 
monopoly.
    I see the same techniques employed by Microsoft. Every time a 
sucessful competing product appears,
    Microsoft does one of four things:
    1. Re-write the OS so that the offending program won't run, or;
    2. Buys the offending company, generally killing it, or;
    3. ``Sells'' a competing program at little or no cost, or;
    4. Pressures it's large customer's (manufacturers) into not 
offering the offending program by predatory pricing or threats of 
actions which would put the manufacturer out of business.
    If Justice had not acted forcefully with IBM, a personal 
computer today, including software would probably cost in the 
neighborhood of $35,000. Microsoft must be broken up into, at a 
minimum, an operating system company and an application software 
company. Additionally, the heavy-handed tactics employed by 
Microsoft, outlined above, should be vigorously punished.
    Sincerely,
    Dana L. Norton, IFA



MTC-00009314

From: John Hughes

[[Page 25140]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse against 
Microsoft!
    John Hughes
    20811-D Bear Valley Road
    Apple Valley, CA 92308



MTC-00009315

From: Kathy K.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:25pm
Subject: We Support Microsoft!



MTC-00009316

From: Robert Moran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
    I support ending the Microsoft Trial. This a waste of tax payers 
(my money) money. This is about special interest groups and nothing 
more. The consumer is going to be the victim in anything but an 
ending of the Trial.
    Robert Moran
    9624 Kini Place
    Diamondhead, Ms 39525



MTC-00009317

From: Jim Lasch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The government has no business trying to break up Microsoft. 
It's time that we got over the idea that if a company is big and 
successful it must be bad. Those Democratic Party ideas are no 
longer in power. Just get out of that business and let Microsoft 
alone. They got where they are through hard work and a lot of 
effort. The government should not penalize that.
    James H. Lasch



MTC-00009318

From: SANFORD SHIFRIN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:30pm
Subject: United States vs Microsoft
    We have spent more time pursuing Microsoft than pursuing Osama 
Bin Laden. It is time to stop pursecuting Microsoft and drop this 
case against a truly great American Company. They have done more to 
advance our economy than any other american company.
    Sanford Shifrin
    P.O. Box 5013,
    Scottsdale, Az. 85261-5013
    480-948-4676



MTC-00009319

From: Edward Middleton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:33pm
Subject: Anti-trust law abuse



MTC-00009320

From: Sean Klope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You?ve wasted enough of my taxes on this outrageous trial. 
Please approve this settlement and save us further loss of precious 
dollars. You wouldn?t even be receiving this email if it hadn?t been 
for Bill Gates. He has saved so many people, companies and 
government agencies so much money by increasing their productivity 
with Personal Computer's and you have the audacity to cite him for 
poor business practice. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
    Sincerely,
    Sean L. Klope
    Director of CIS Operations
    Manufacturing Company in El Cajon, CA



MTC-00009321

From: rossenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Let us put this to bed, enough money has been wasted, all for 
nothing. I am almost 78 years old, computers are a great thing in my 
life, without Microsoft, I would have never learned how to use them. 
Bill Gates has done more for the nations around the world than any 
company I can think of plus all of the people that have jobs. Let 
this all go away and they will have more resources to develope new 
products for the USA and the world. Clinton is gone, so should the 
phony charges against Microsoft.
    L H Ross
    Tucson Az



MTC-00009322

From: CZackim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:44pm
Subject: Let's make an end to the Anti-Trust Case
    To whom it may concern:
    Few company's have created the type of wealth that Microsoft has 
helped their employees accomplish. In addition they have provided 
ways for all types of people to earn income more easily then ever in 
the past. Let's make an end to all this nonsense and allow Microsoft 
to work without interference.
    Sincerely,
    Carole Zackim
    River Vale, NJ



MTC-00009323

From: GARY STOLP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:47pm
    Please end this persecution of a successful industry that has 
done more to inform the world and this country than all the 
television and newspapers combined.
    Sincerely,
    Gary C Stolp
    1218 Boston Street
    Muskogee OK 74401



MTC-00009324

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/7/02  6:50pm
Subject: ``Red Letter Day'' Review
    During the slo-motion chess moves of the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Trial it is interesting to note a few of the ``extraordinary 
events'' in Orange County since the New Year, in order to gain an 
overall perspective of the ``big board''.
    An LA Times chess column after New Years hinted at the 
``greatest, largest real estate chess game'', beginning right now. 
Certainly COX Communications, Orange and San Diego counties are 
involved with major pension funds and investments behind the 
chessboard.
    On a smaller scale, my sister & her husband, Bonnie & A1 Rex 
have placed their home for sale with a realtor and friend. My 
feelings are that their home, my brother Barry's home, and perhaps 
my cousin Robert Miller's home in suburban Chicago were purchased 
with funds illegally appropriated from me, using a variety of 
underhanded methods. My parents' visits to the IRS confirming sales 
of these homes leads me to believe that a court order has finally 
been enforced. My Friday ``Knight'' move, motoring the silver Celica 
chariot to Kinko's Irvine center signaled additional documents for 
the US v Microsoft litigation for those who followed. The subsequent 
road trip to LA's Westwood FBI office and a visit to the Los Angeles 
Federal Building were closely monitored by others loyal to Disney, 
Oracle, Apple Computer, and multinational affiliates. Castrol GTX 
was even kind enough to award me with a print ad in AOL/Time 
Warner's Sports Illustrated later on Friday evening, confirming it's 
OK to drive your car ``hard'', as long as you use their oil. The 
wonders of today's electronic/print advertising at lightspeed! My 
Wilshire 5-speed legal Celica sprint from the FBI offices in 
Westwood to the Federal Building in downtown LA in under 40 minutes 
during Friday's rush hour was definitely noteworthy.
    Tony Tavares, President of Disney's Anaheim Sports knew he was 
finished at Disney/Anaheim Sports, resigning on Friday, about the 
time my documents were printed. Some of my recent writings had 
references to the PAC funding from Arrowhead Water Company & Disney, 
stalling my employment search & documents regarding antics at the 
Crystal Cathedral's concourse elevator, where I provide volunteer 
service on Sunday mornings. The Crystal Cathedral's music & creative 
teams use Macintosh computers for music scoring & multimedia 
creations. This team recently received new IMACs and other Macintosh 
computers, perhaps as part of a ``grant''. Some of the 
administration uses PCs running versions of Microsoft Windows. Email 
can be sent across the platform at the Garden Grove campus.
    The volunteer security service I provide on Sunday's has really 
evolved into a political position. Most of the choir members meet at 
this area when forming for each procession (usually two each 
morning), musical and pulpit guests are escorted on the concourse 
level via the elevator nearby. As I have mentioned in an earlier 
memo, I have purchased a small 13'' Sony TV in order to view the 
telecasts downstairs, and coordinate the security efforts with 
others. Each week at this service brings new challenges, mostly 
social skills answering guests questions, and providing friendly 
service to the staff. That's no problem. Other times, a few of the 
Crystal Cathedral's family members scheme a few events targeted to 
challenge me. Most events are harmless pranks, I just roll with the 
humor.

[[Page 25141]]

    Yesterday, however, I believe additional pollen was placed in 
suspension on a table, perhaps through oil in a perfume, or sprayed 
on the Sony TV, exasperating my bronchitis/upper respiratory 
infection, challenging and overwhelming double 24 Hour Sudafed 
medication ingested before I arrived. My sinus and face could hardly 
stop from running, after the previous bronchitis had mostly cleared 
up. I know from educated biofeedback when an accelerant or another 
``piggyback'' attack would occur from experience. Fortunately, my 
experience as a professional and athlete (just as the Crystal 
Cathedral members are) allows me to perform even with a fever & 
cold, as I never missed a live Blackhawks Hockey game during the 
three seasons I performed at the Chicago Stadium.
    The Orange County Register had their Show section cover page 
with the title ``Blackhawk Down'', a double meaning for the editors. 
Fortunately, my conditioning allowed me to run 12 miles at Newport 
Beach the day before the Crystal Cathedral security gig. President 
George Bush and his family were vacationers in California and Oregon 
this weekend. ``W'' visited a predominantly Hispanic group of 
supporters in Ontario on Saturday morning. We had heard rumors that 
the Presidential family may visit the Crystal Cathedral, however 
their afternoon trip to Portland, Oregon on Saturday signaled a 
different agenda, perhaps to visit with some of the of the Nike, HP 
& Intel Beaverton Bunch, and to show support for this heavily 
Republican area.
    Sony Pictures' ``Blackhawk Down'', like several of Hollywood's 
recent titles, ``The Rat Race'', ``Ocean's Eleven, 12/07/01 `Are You 
In?''' and others have had a subliminal theme regarding foreplanned 
activities for me. While I was training for the LA Marathon with the 
Roadrunners in Venice Beach last August & September, ``The Rat 
Race'' began to appear on billboards throughout Hollywood, beginning 
in late September/October. One of the best ``Amway'' motivational 
tapes I heard was, ``When You Know Why, You Can Endure How!'' This 
philosophy is truly inspirational, with a success story from one of 
the hard working members of the INA group. A lot of people criticize 
the methods that ``Amway'' people use, in the media especially, 
however their perseverance is incredible, using group training as 
one key for success!
    The Hollywood movie ``moguls'' continue to spend millions of 
dollars on schemes in order to stall my financial settlement. Most 
of these companies had been fuelling the subversion against me for 
years, for unknown reasons other that the Wirtz/Blackhawk connection 
I had many years ago. I have detailed some of the ``forced labor'' 
in the multi-decade plot to ``clone'' the replacement hockey 
musician, and the multinational million dollar plot to cover it up 
afterward. In 1977, the first edition of an advertising book for 
cable and broadcast television authored by San Diego State 
University Telecommunications Professor, Elizabeth Heighton, was 
released. The second edition, dedicated to ``Bob & Dorothy, again!'' 
was re-released in 1985-86, the years I attended SDSU's 
Telecommunications program. In other words, an eight year 
``overtime'' forced labor period occurred because I first refused 
the Stadium opportunity in 1977. I received my BA from Northeastern 
Illinois University in 1979, and continued to perform live music and 
represent information technology products in the Chicago area until 
1985.
    Closing, with a few words about last week's ``Red Letter Day'' 
courtesy of local Aliso viejo USPS workers and several large 
companies. Geico insurance, Speigel Catalog, and I'm certain, the 
investment side of Wells Fargo in Orange County, CA conspired to 
send their ``red letters'' at one time, distributed by the Aliso 
Viejo USPS for delivery last week. That takes quite a bit of 
coordination folks, almost as much as a ``grassy knoll/textbook 
depository'' conspiracy.
    I have appreciated the USDOJ confirmation that some Crest 
toothpaste has been spiked with a sedative in my parents home, 
stored in their bathroom. I used one of the new tubes a few months 
after my mother had purchased these ``especially for me'' for one 
application, wondering why the tubes had never been used. I could 
feel the sedative reaction to my day's performance. The Crest tubes 
have a ``gold leaf'' shape on the box, and a similar printing on the 
tube. I have never used the toothpaste after the first trial, 
knowing the ``Muenchausen's Proxy Syndrome'' and previous food 
packaging/intentional poisoning experience my family has. This 
Blackhawk was never downed by the anthrax attack. I only had a few 
easy days after the new year running at Newport Beach, Niketown & 
shopping visits in LA shopping & USDOJ document processing in 
between! My father had called one of his Chicago area sisters on 
Saturday. I overheard a part of the conversation that stated, ``It's 
like the flu, when you're down for a few days!'' My father hasn't 
been sick for over a month, and this conversation was most probably 
a confirmation of the anthrax or bio attack on me.
    Thank you for listening,
    Robert Remington



MTC-00009325

From: Dave Bowling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think that it is time to end the action against Microsoft. The 
settlement that is currently on the table is more than fair. I feel 
this entire process was a poor use of taxpayers dollars not unlike 
the waste involved with the impeachment of President Clinton. It is 
time to end an era of Anti-trust abuse. Please remove the deterrent 
to investors in the high-tech arena so that we can get the economy 
moving again.
    Thank you,
    David Bowling
    212 Orlando Avenue
    Normal, ILLinois 61761
    [email protected]



MTC-00009326

From: Pat (038) Jim Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:53pm
Subject: End the persecution
    Please do what you can to end this fiasco. It has cost everyone 
enough and it is time to aid our economic recovery.
    Thank You.
    Jim A. Dougherty



MTC-00009327

From: Don Blume
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please drop the case. This was a vicious Clinton/Reno attack 
because Gates is successful. Don't frighten would-be entrepreneurs 
out of their dreams, and further damage our great Country.
    Thanks,
    Don Blume



MTC-00009328

From: Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:54pm
Subject: anti-trust case
    Leave Microsoft alone! Without them, people like me would not be 
able to do so much with our computers. Clinton created the decline 
in tech stocks with his assault on Microsoft. Only his buddy at 
Oracle did ok. I hope you listen to the many voices like mine and 
settle once and for all!
    Rose Hutchinson



MTC-00009329

From: Frederick D Eggert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish it known that we support the subject settlement!



MTC-00009330

From: Pat (038) Jim Dougherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  6:56pm
Subject: End the persecution
    Please end the persecution of this company and lets get to work 
ending our recession.
    Thank you.
    Jim A. Dougherty



MTC-00009331

From: Bob Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am writing in support of the settlement reached between the 
Federal Government and nine states in the Microsoft case. I believe 
the settlement is in the public interest, and I am distressed that 
Microsoft's competitors and other special interest groups are 
continuing their efforts to prolong this litigation. I am a consumer 
and I use Microsoft products extensively. They are the main reason 
that I can use a computer in my personal life and business. Their 
products are reasonably priced and are superior to most of the 
others I have tried. During the comment period, I urge you to look 
at the benefits that Microsoft has brought to the industry and to 
our nation. Let the special interest groups turn to their own 
devices and spend their time and efforts on improving their 
products, the way that Microsoft has improved theirs

[[Page 25142]]

over the years through innovation and dedication to their ideals in 
a highly competitive industry.



MTC-00009332

From: Keith Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:01pm
Subject: acknowledgement
    Greetings,
    I submitted a public comment last week and did not receive any 
confirmation. Should I expect something of the sort? Also, what is 
the deadline for filing comments relating to the case?
    Thank you,
    Keith Godfrey
    Senior Software Engineer
    Wolfetech Corporation



MTC-00009333

From: Mr. Don
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:10pm
    Why are Microsoft's competitors allowed to influence the outcome 
of a court case? No matter what the outcome, they would say it's not 
enough (of course they would!). $1 Billion in computers to low 
income schools is bad? Apple isn't happy because that's their 
market--OK, then have Apple supply those schools with computers and 
software.
    Has anyone looked at AOL/Time Warner lately--how about instant 
messaging, isn't this an FCC issue, yet I hear nothing about it. All 
I ever hear from AOL, Sun, Oracle, etc. is bad mouthing of 
Microsoft. If their product(s) were better we would be using them--
period. And please don't tell me they can't compete, these guys 
OWNED the server market, but Microsoft built software to COMPETE 
with them. They didn't cry, they created & innovated. Don't tell me 
$100 Billion dollar Corporations can't compete.
    Linux, Palm, and a myriad of other OS's exist, but I'm not going 
to use them if they don't do what I need and I need business ready 
applications. Windows is extremely rich in what it provides, and 
Office does everything anyone could possibly need. Word Perfect and 
Lotus didn't evolve fast enough, so how is that Microsoft's fault?
    I would have had a problem if Microsoft stood still and didn't 
improve their products, but every one of their releases takes huge 
leaps forward. They hire some of the brightest minds in our country, 
and their ``ex'' employees have gone on to create untold numbers of 
jobs by starting other technology companies.
    Microsoft continues to provide leadership and direction to an 
entire industry, and believe me not everyone hates this company, in 
fact many of us are big fans.



MTC-00009334

From: Patricia Birren-Wilsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:13pm
Subject: Shameful Abuse of Microsoft
    As a discriminating consumer, I would like to see an end to the 
Anti-Trust abuse in which Microsoft has so long been ensnared. We 
should applaud, rather than condemn, Microsoft, who has so 
steadfastly provided handsome compensation to so many, as a result 
of superb design, marketing and distribution. I say, leave Microsoft 
alone, so it more continue, without distraction of chastisement and 
penalty, to represent itself as a glowing illustration of American 
Capitalism!
    Patricia Birren-Wilsey
    Winnetka, California 91306
    818-718-6390
    CC:Jerome Birren,Kerry Penn,Daniel Licon



MTC-00009335

From: Emmet Rixford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT JUSTICE DEPT.
    Please stop wasting my tax dollars on the Microsoft Case and 
interfering with Business & Investment.
    Accept the settlement!
    Emmet Rixford



MTC-00009336

From: Brenda Pope
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:34pm
Subject: No more Microsoft abuse!!!!!!!
    Hello,
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Don't continue the Clinton-era 
meddling where you don't belong. This is a country where you are 
supposed to have the freedom to succeed without government 
intervention!!!!
    Thanks,
    B. Pope



MTC-00009337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:17pm
Subject: Law Abuse
    We urge you to end the Clinton-era Anti-Trust law abuse.
    Richard and Phyllis T Harold
    205 E Florence Ave
    Glenwood, IA 51534-1107



MTC-00009338

From: Allen Bossa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It's time for the government to quit harassing Microsoft. That 
company has done more to make computer use easy for everyone to 
master than anyone else. Stop wasting our tax money.
    Allen Bossa
    Brigham City, UT



MTC-00009339

From: Bill Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello, I wish you and yours could settle the microsoft 
settlement as soon as able. Much good and saving of money will come 
of it!
    Thank you,
    William R. Mann Jr.
    942 Viscaya Blvd
    St. Augustine Fl. 32086



MTC-00009340

From: Dr. Chuka Okafor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:21pm
Subject: Confidential Business Proposal
    From the desk of:
    DR. Lawrence Ubah,
    Tel No: Your Intl. Access Code + 873-762-692484
    Fax No: Your Intl. Access Code + 873-762-692485
    Email: [email protected]
    Lagos, Nigeria.
    ATTN: MANAGING DIRECTOR/CEO.
    REQUEST FOR AN URGENT CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
    After due deliberation with my colleagues, We have decided to 
forward to you this business proposal. We want a reliable person who 
could assist us in the transfer the sum of Twenty Million, Five 
Hundred Thousand United States Dollars ($20,500,000) to your 
account. This fund resulted from an over-invoiced bill from 
contracts awarded by us under the budget allocation to our Ministry. 
This bill has been approved for payment by the other concerned 
Ministries. The contract has since been executed, commissioned and 
the contractor was paid the actual cost of the contract. We are left 
with the balance US$20.5M as part of the over-invoiced amount which 
we have deliberated over estimated for our own use. But under our 
protocol division, we as civil servants are forbidden to operate or 
own foreign accounts. This is why we are soliciting your assistance 
in this manner and regard. As you may want to know, I am the Chief 
Accountant/Internal Auditor of the Contract Award Committee (CAC) of 
the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). This transaction 
is very much free from all sorts of RISKS and TROUBLE from my 
Government. We the N.N.P.C. Officials involved in this deal have put 
in many years in service to this Ministry. We have been exercising 
patience for this opportunity for so long and to most of us this is 
a life time opportunity we cannot afford to miss. You need not to 
worry about the responsibilities of transferring this fund into your 
account, because all the administrative step needed for the transfer 
of this fund into your designated bank account will be done by us. 
We have agreed to COMPENSATE you duly if agreement is reached by 
both of us and I and one of my colleagues involved in this deal will 
come to your country to arrange for our share, upon the confirmation 
from you that the money has been credited into your nominated bank 
account. Consequent upon your acceptance of this proposal, kindly 
confirm your interest by Telephone to me, through my Direct Tel No: 
234-1-775-5558 and Fax No: 234-1-759-7416. Your indication by revert 
Telephone to me of your sincere and serious interest will enable me 
send you or brief you of the PROCEDURES FOR THIS TRANSACTION. If my 
line is busy, please be persistent enough and you will surely get 
through.
    NOTE: In the event of your inability to handle this transaction 
please inform us so that we can look for another reliable person who 
can assist in this respect. It might surprise you why we choose you 
and trusted you for this transaction. Yes, we believe that good 
friends can be discovered and business like this can not be realized 
without mutual trust. This is why we have decided to trust

[[Page 25143]]

you for this transaction. Be further informed that everyone's 
interest and security had been considered before you were contacted, 
so be rest assured and feel free to go into this transaction with 
us. But let Honesty, Trust and Confidentiality be our watchword 
throughout this transaction and your prompt reply will be highly 
appreciated. Thank you, and God bless.
    Best Regards,
    Dr. Chuka Okafor.



MTC-00009341

From: Mary Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:22pm
Subject: Justice Dept. Suit



MTC-00009342

From: Peter Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:24pm
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is fundamentally flawed. 
I think that the settlement as now written will further entrench 
Microsoft's monopoly position and will not be in the public 
interest. I believe that Microsoft's exercise of its monopoly power 
has harmed me both personally and professionally. I believe that I 
am still being harmed.
    1. I believe that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to 
charge me predatory prices. In particular, I believe Microsoft has 
used its monopoly power to implement business practices designed to 
drive competing products (such as DRDOS, among others) from the 
market so that it can set prices unilaterally.
    2. I believe that Microsoft has supplemented these monopoly 
business practices with technical measures designed to reduce or 
eliminate my ability to use alternative products. In particular, I 
believe that Microsoft has used its monopoly in operating systems to 
prevent competition in its Office applications.
    3. I believe that Microsoft has designed its products to make it 
difficult or impossible to recover my own data for my own use in any 
form other than that designed for use by its own products. In 
particular, Microsoft has refused to release the file formats in 
which my data is stored by its applications, thus preventing me from 
using other programs, even ones I design and build myself, to 
further process the data.
    I do not believe that this settlement does anything to remedy 
the injuries Microsoft has done to me personally. I do not believe 
that the proposed settlement addresses my injuries in any way. I 
believe that any solution involving the provision of software or 
hardware to the public schools should:
    1. allow local school authorities to purchase software and 
hardware from any source whatsoever, and
    2. as a condition for the use of any Microsoft software, require 
Microsoft to publish without restriction the full technical 
specifications of any software it provides, including, but not 
limited to, all application programming interfaces and file formats.
    I believe that this latter point is particularly important for 
any plan aimed at improving the public education. True education 
requires understanding. The goal of education is to prepare students 
to understand and cope with new circumstances. To do this, students 
must come to know the fundamental principles underlying software 
design and implementation, not just how to manipulate screen images. 
This type of knowledge is best imparted by providing students with 
actual examples of working programs and then allowing them to extend 
or expand them.
    If Microsoft truly wishes to improve education, then Microsoft 
will provide the information about its application programming 
interfaces and file formats to make that improvement possible. If 
Microsoft does not do so, then I believe that it should exercise no 
control over how the money is to be spent. In particular, schools 
should be free to spend all of it on hardware and then choose free 
software, such as RedHat Linux, if they wish. I believe that this 
will be a much better solution.
    Peter Olsen



MTC-00009344

From: George Skezas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:27pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sir:
    I strongly support the Microsoft settlement. I believe in strong 
competition and the waste of taxpayers money on this case is 
unacceptable. Please continue to pressue the states who have 
continued this battle against one our greatest companies.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    George Skezas



MTC-00009345

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It's time that our government stop playing the Clinton Era 
Corporation Bashing and shakedowns. It's also time for our Justice 
Department to stop wasting taxpayers money on pursuing Microsoft on 
behalf of their competitors.
    Drop the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Two overtaxed taxpayers,
    Mary and Jim Gede.



MTC-00009346

From: Geoff Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:33pm
Subject: Stop
    Enough is enough. Its time to end the Bill Clinton shakedown of 
Microsoft.
    Geoff Miller



MTC-00009347

From: Andrejus Stavickis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    This message in response of the message from Microsoft, dated 
Wed 1/2/2002 12:20 PM, Subject: DOJ wants to hear from you on MS 
settlement.
    I'd like to make a few short statements. From one point of view, 
it's looks like the MS must be punished for their monopoly, but from 
the other point of view, there are NO any harm to end-users. Looks 
like this is a battle just between gigants. And nothing more, except 
lobystic movements, are found in that case.
    The monopoly can be reached in a few ways, one is when the 
government gives the monopoly rights to a company, another one when 
users just use only that service--this can be done in a 2 ways--
there are just no competitors, the monopolist's product is so cheap, 
that there are no other competitors.
    As far, as I know there are always a choice for users to install 
or not an operating system when they receive a new/OEM computer. And 
when I bought a computer they always asking me do I want Windows or 
Linux, or you can deal with the manufacturer what to install--even, 
if they have an agreement with MS, that--may--prevent them to 
install Linux on their system.
    Last, but not least: The harm to American economy (and the 
Global economy itself) whould be much more higher, than meaning 
results archieved with the more strict settlement. Just imagine--
Microsoft will bancrupt within 6 months after settlement--how we 
will work on our pc's? Even Your pc will be left without any 
support. The whole state will loose a job, American Government will 
loose hundreds of billions in taxes. Or just imagine--The Microsoft 
will transfer it's main office to another country--it's excellent 
solution for destination, but for United States it's whould be a 
long and really deep recession. Microsoft even whould be able to 
just ``buy'' a small country.
    Conclusion: I think, that there should be some limitations for 
Microsoft, but just keep in mind, that the ``stick always has a two 
ends'', if you will ``bend the stick too much'' the stick will 
broke--then there will be no way back. I believe, that you will come 
to right and fair settlement.
    God, bless America.



MTC-00009348

From: Randall Jarrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00009349

From: The Dixon's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:40pm
Subject: Antitrust Case
    I switched to Windows ME this year from MAC OS. The ME OS 
product is riddled with problems. I had hoped that the Win ME 
platform was as stable as Win 98 rel 2. It is not. Windows XP does 
not hold much promise either. PC World Magazine has had several 
articles concerning the bugs in XP. If any other manufacturer sold a 
product with as many defects as Microsoft, the would be sued out of 
existence or run out of the market place by poor sales. Internet 
Explorer 6.0 is full of security bugs.
    There is little choice in certain business applications when it 
comes to an OS. The strong tie between Microsoft OS and networking 
and applications lends itself to

[[Page 25144]]

monopolistic practices. For example--Where can I get MS Office XP 
for a Linux platform? Where can I get a MAC version of AutoCAD? 
There is not a strong effort for compatibility across OS platforms. 
Ask Jobs what it took to get a current MS Office Suite for MAC OSX.
    Microsoft has a major PR problem. If my ME system worked well I 
would not be as upset. Microsoft dictates upgrades through 
compatibility and support issues. At work, we have 2 years on the 
Win 2000 OS before support ends and we are forced to upgrade. My 5 
year old MAC did not give me as much trouble in five years as this 
system (ME) did in the first 5 minutes. If MS products worked I 
would have less complaints. The image of Microsoft is upgrade and it 
will resolve itself. I have a new computer with a half baked 
operating system. To fix it is time consuming as well as full of 
conflicting options on how to resolve it. I started with a DOS 2.1 
PC. I am not a first timer. I went MAC to find a stable platform. 
When the system works it can be good.
    Follow the release bugs on the systems and applications. Not 
impressive. Also not competitive.
    Chuck Dixon
    Parkville, MO 64152
    email:[email protected]



MTC-00009350

From: Patrick R. Lizot
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/7/02  7:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please settle the Microsoft's case! We have to admit that they 
are the Best of the Best all around the world!
    USA should be proud to have such a ``computer-firm''! a hand-
user.
    Patrick R. Lizot
    Senior Procurement Specialist
    Central Operations Services
    Ext 5746



MTC-00009351

From: Angelo Campanella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Posture in the software reatik market.
    I use software as a means to an end; engineering consulting. I 
used DOS (pre Windows) most successfully from 1985 to 1995, because 
it offered the widest choice of software to do a wide variety of 
important engineering support services.
    These days, the widest variety of useful software (for 
engineering) is written for Windows. I don't mind this directly, but 
indirectly it is a HUGE nuisance because, unlike DOS, Windows is 
huge, taking up astronomical amounts of memory, and often very much 
slower for relatively the same tasks. The slowness truly comes from 
huge embellishments that few of us ever asked for such as multi-
color, imagery (pictures and artwork not related to my work 
product), security, conversion of other software, etc.
    The Internet has made this scene even more complicated. 
Microsoft, instead of continuing the philosophy of DOS (of being 
compatible and simple to use, has made extremely complex 
enhancements), and at the same time made it difficult to use other 
software items.
    Microsoft, instead of making compatibility its theme, has 
instead promulgated exclusivity. To me this act is tantamount to 
causing a monopoly. If there were wide choices in the marketplace, 
Microsoft's attempts at such exclusivity (like pushing their 
``Explorer'' in our face at every turn) would be avoided by we 
users, by simply not using Microsoft products.
    But we cannot do that because of the breadth of the use of 
Windows systems. It borders on being a public utility. I can 
communicate with colleagues around he world, and exchange Windows 
documents easily. I know that that last statement flies in the face 
of my Microsoft Truculence theme, but in reality, both are true, and 
I should want also both of them to be right; not one right 
(worldwide commonality) and one wrong (domestic exclusivity and 
failure to enhance ease-of-use).
    One thing that Microsoft MUST be FORCED to do is to offer on-
the-telephone assistance to any and all of we software users 24 
hours a day and seven days a week including holidays for a period of 
not less than FIVE years. Never mind trying to squeeze money out of 
Microsoft. Just get them to operate a large multiplicity of 800-
lines ``free'' (in lieu of your settlement dollars) so that they 
really help us as a public service while they also ``feel our pain'' 
in using their software. This will be turn out to be a win-win 
situation, in my opinion.
    This service is easy for your agents to police since any one of 
them and of their family members can call anytime during the year 
period to poll the ongoing utility proffered.
    Angelo Campanella
    ``I have simply studied carefully whatever I've undertaken, and 
tried to hold a reserve that would carry me through.''--Charles A. 
Lindbergh.



MTC-00009352

From: Michael J. Masquith
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/7/02  7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am part of a global network that is focused on getting the 
BeOS (or an equivalent, possibly open-source) back into the market 
place, but there is little hope of success if the following issues 
regarding Microsoft aren't addressed:
    Open Office file formats. MS Office file formats are 
unfortunately simultaneously ubiquitous and proprietary. Because 
there is realistically no chance of them being superceded by any 
open standard, they need to made non-proprietary, (probably by court 
order).
    Win32 APIs must be documented and made available.
    Dual-boot options should become mandatory. The single most 
damaging thing that MS has done was largely ignored (except by those 
whose businesses were destroyed). Their ability to force the major 
OEMs to only install Windows precluded any competition whatsoever in 
the Operating Systems market, precisely where BeOS attempted to 
compete. Not even the most microscopic vestige of these onerous 
strong-arm `agreements' with the OEMs should be allowed to remain. 
Enormous, crippling penalties should be swiftly and irrevocably 
levied if it recurs.
    Anti-trust measures must break down and stomp completely flat 
all barriers the monopolist erected against competition. BeOS, even 
in it's current weak condition could at least attempt to compete if 
the playing field were set level again.
    Thank you.
    Michael J. Masquith
    Barkin' Beaver Studio,
    Herndon, VA



MTC-00009353

From: Ken Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:48pm
Subject: Justice
    Dear Sirs;
    It is my belief that we have had enough of Clintons slime and it 
is now time to get on with it.
    As part of getting on with it, it seems to me that we should 
discontinue the perssecution of a successful effort named microsoft 
and start fignting our way back to what America was founded on, 
Freedom to do, Freedom to be and Freedom to have.
    Please stop using tax dollars pursuing someone who is good at 
what they do.
    Sincerely
    Ken Howe



MTC-00009354

From: Philip Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:49pm
Subject: Antitrust Case
    Please end this case against Microsoft. This has been a waste of 
tax dollars and has kept more important matters from being heard in 
court. This country is based on capitalism and until this case, it 
has not been against the law to produce a product and sell it.
    Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Philip L. Casey



MTC-00009356

From: Gilles Desaulniers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Having been around since the beginning of the ``micro computer 
industry'' since I bought my first radio shack computer in 1977, I 
can comment that Micrososft controls everything and we now have no 
more choices.
    The industry is dominated by them. the enthusiasm that created 
this industry is now gone and hopelessly forever linked to Microsoft 
tentacles that we can't shed no matter what we do. Their software 
needs upgrading every couple of years that demands more money from 
the consumer. They integrate every new innovation into their 
operating system and destroy the incentive to create new stuff.
    Their bullying of the JAVA language the Sun Computers invented 
is a perfect example of hijacking innovation.
    The zest and fervor surrounding the industy is slowly dying. I 
used to look forward to programming and trying new things and being 
part of an ever expanding

[[Page 25145]]

industry. Now we sit on the sidelines and watch ``Microsoft do their 
thing''. Punishment should be very severe. A compnay like Microsoft 
that has endless resources also has numbers of tricks up it's 
sleeves. The idea that they will just sit and behave is ludicrous.
    The wealth accumulated by this company is drectly related to 
it's forceful actions. Some of it needs to be taken away.
    I slimmed down version of windows would be very usefull and any 
patenets they hold with the operating system should be invalidated 
becuase of their actions.
    I suspect that they will only continue to corner the industry 
and hold many companies hostage to their petty demands because they 
can. If only in suttle tones it is enough to make and small 
innovator capitulate to a giant like Microsoft that has unlimited 
legal help and dollars. No company would every think of taking them 
on Excpet manybe IBM and SUN. Everyone else is lost.
    As I write this text on my WINDOWS computer and you receive it 
on your windows computer. . . . think about the choices we really 
have. NONE NONE. . . .
    HELP us the reinvigorate this industry again and allow the 
genius that every single one of us can perhaps bring to this 
industry and let them benefit from the ideas and share in the 
wealth.
    Thanks
    Gilles Desaulniers
    San Francisco
    415-637-6415



MTC-00009357

From: MRW
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:53pm
Subject: settlement
    Let Microsoft alone and let them continue to provide jobs for a 
lot of people.
    Merle Weinman



MTC-00009358

From: Bill s.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir,
    It is about time that you allow Bill Gates to do what he does 
best and that is to use the American System of Free Enterprise.
    Bill Gates did not do anything wrong. 1) He came up with a 
product that is superior to anything else on the market; 2) Most of 
the intelligent manufacturers decided to use his products; and 3) 
people became adept at using his products and, regardless of what 
they say, are desirous of maintaining compatibility in their systems 
and continue to purchase Microsoft software.
    Bill gates did it the correct way. It is about time that the 
U.S. Government gets off of his back and allows him to continue to 
provide the American public with the products (software) that the 
want.
    How about the Justice Department really going after the ``BAD 
GUYS'' in our society and letting Bill Gates and Microsoft alone.
    Thank you very much,
    William J. Staskel
    Janet Staskel
    14 First Avenue
    Central Islip, NY 11722-3010
    (631) 234-6628



MTC-00009359

From: george mezori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:58pm
Subject: more
    Dear sir; Please stop this mud slinging on Microsoft. We are 
having enough problems with the stock market currently.
    Stop the trials.
    G. Mezori



MTC-00009360

From: Bob Patterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  7:54pm
Subject: End
    Please end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse. I support the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Bob & Judy Patterson



MTC-00009361

From: Giles Constant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:02pm
Subject: A small comment about Microsoft
    Dear sir/madam,
    It is impossible to buy a laptop computer in the UK without 
giving money to Microsoft. Really--I've tried. Even if I intend to 
use Linux on the machine, due to the OEM licensing restrictions 
(which the DOJ settlement has failed to effectively address), 
licensees are not allowed to provide me with the hardware without 
Windows. The EULA has a clause which says if you do not use the 
software, you can take it back to the vendor for a refund, but 
unfortunately, this is only applicable for the price of the entire 
laptop. This is (in my opinion) the most definitive example of the 
term ``monopoly'' I can possibly imagine. Although I speak from the 
UK, where the problem is likely to be addressed by the EU, I would 
hope that after the considerable expense involved in finding 
Microsoft guilty in this dispute, the USDOJ is capable of dishing 
out a *resolution* to the problem of Microsofts continuous attempts 
to gain control of every single aspect of computing from hardware to 
software to networking, at the expense of the people who actually 
work to make computers better for everyone.
    If Microsoft's software were superior to (say) BeOS, which 
failed to survive as a consumer operating system due to the very 
licensing restrictions I object to, then I would be happy to use 
their software, but unfortunately, I only ever find myself FORCED to 
use it against my will, due to the viral nature of the company and 
its software.
    Very disappointed.
    Giles Constant



MTC-00009362

From: george mezori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:02pm
Subject: support
    We support the current Microsoft settlement. Please,please 
discontinue the court proceedings.
    G. Mezori



MTC-00009363

From: Frank Meyers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs/Madams
    I support the Microsoft settlement. Please add my comment to the 
public record.
    Thank you
    Frank Meyers Jr.



MTC-00009364

From: Dale Malott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft--Clinton Anti-Trust Law Abuse
    Gentlemen: It is time to end yet another attempt by left wing 
liberals to fleece an American Company as Clinton's pay back to the 
lawyers for their contribution to his two disastrous 
administrations. Microsoft was built by imitative and hard work. If 
the companies that run to the Justice Department to complain about 
Microsoft had exhibited the talent and hard work, they would be in a 
position to compete.
    Please end this Anti-trust Law Abuse now.
    Thank you,
    Dale Malott



MTC-00009365

From: Annette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:10pm
    Leave Microsoft alone PLEASE! Don't wreck it like AT&T was 
wrecked! Look at our phone system now!!!!!
    Annette Crane
    Keystone Heights, Fla.



MTC-00009366

From: JAMES B. LINTON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    I think it is about time that we get on with business and leave 
microsoft alone. Bill Clinton is out of the White House now so we 
don't need any of his anti trust laws.
    Thanks,
    James B. Linton
    204 S. Wise St.
    Samson, Al 36477-1510



MTC-00009367

From: barbara ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:11pm
Subject: Anti-trust abuse
    Will you please stop all this nonsense about Microsoft. The only 
people who have been hurt are those who put their money in for 
retirement and education for their children etc.
    Please stop hurting myself and others who trust you to have 
common sense.
    Do you not realize that the economic problems all started when 
Clinton decided again to hurt the people he was to protect? All our 
economic problems right now can be traced right back to that law 
suite.
    Barbara Ball
    La Crosse, WI 54603

[[Page 25146]]



MTC-00009368

From: The Galli's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:13pm
Subject: The ``Case''
    The nine States and the Dist. of Colombia would be much better 
off starting to tend to their own increasing economic woes and stop 
Beating the ``Help the Consumer Drum'' for a cause whish was dubious 
from the onset.
    Don't we have enough Economic Behemoths'' gasping for air 
without putting another to the test? If I was Bill Gates I would 
move my Corporate Headquarters off shore in a show of Disgust''
    A concerned citizen-consumer



MTC-00009369

From: barbara ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This is supposed to be a free country, free enterprise, etc. 
This is an outrage companies should be allowed to do what they want 
and the people will decide whether or not they wish to support said 
company. The government has to get over the idea that we are 
children and need them to tell us how to spend our money and that we 
can and do make decisions all the time.
    Barbara Ball
    La Crosse, WI 54603



MTC-00009370

From: David Hebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:19pm
Subject: Please end the abuse!
    To Whom it may concern,
    It's time to move on and end the ridiculous law suit against 
Microsoft one and for all. Bill Gates has done great things for the 
Personal Computer world and the liberal elite can't stand it. It's 
time to quit spend taxpayer dollars in an attempt to ruin a company 
that has been key in economic growth in America.
    Please stop the litigation's now.
    David Hebert
    Psalm 119:9-11



MTC-00009371

From: Frank Jett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over.
    I Support the Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely
    Frank Q. Jett



MTC-00009372

From: Gorman Blanton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:17pm
Subject: Re: Antitrust Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    We have had enough of the Clinton era Anti trust aginst 
Microsoft. Please end this fiasco aginst the only American Company 
left in the United Sates. Stop all The Chinese Products that are 
flooding USA. there is the reason our economy has bottemed out and 
the reason is Bill Clinton SOLD OUT THE USA TO THE CHINESE!!!!!!
    Gorman T Blanton



MTC-00009373

From: Seth Held
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    If Microsoft has broken the law, fine them and moniter them but 
don't make the consumer suffer by doing what you did to AT&T. Please 
. . . seth held



MTC-00009374

From: Judith Gersting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my belief that the Microsoft settlement should go forward 
so that this company can get back to its main business of developing 
software and that its competitors can also move forward and develop 
their own products. Too much time and money has been spent on this 
process, diverting energies and funds from a more useful purpose.
    Dr. Judith Gersting,
    Chair Computer Science Department
    University of Hawaii at Hilo
    200 W. Kawili St.
    Hilo, HI 96720



MTC-00009375

From: Maurice Knudsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    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.
    Please help to end this Clinton-era Anti-trust abuse!
    Thanking you sincerely, I am
    Maurice J. Knudsen
    4428 Main Street
    Elk Horn, IA 51531-2000



MTC-00009376

From: Richard Elfers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This message regards the Tunney Act. We urge settlement of the 
Microsoft case, with no further litigation.
    Sincerely yours,
    Richard and Priscilla Elfers
    6823 Ripley Lane
    Renton, Wa. 98056



MTC-00009377

From: Patricia Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:33pm
    Please put an end to the anti-trust litigation against 
Microsoft. Why do we punish a company that comes up with working and 
workable ideas and puts its competition to shame?
    Patricia J. Burke
    1427--100th St. S. W., Sp. 156
    Everett, WA 98204-1107
    (425) 355-5800



MTC-00009378

From: Jane Calvert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Would you please end this ``going after Microsoft'' fiasco. No 
one forces anyone to do business with Microsoft or like their 
inventions. They obviously have many talented people in their 
organization that comes up with technology that people want to spend 
their money on and I can not see where they are putting anyone else 
out of business by underhanded schemes. Just save the taxpayers a 
lot of money and settle this thing once and for all. Let the young 
and inventive people of this country know that it is okay to go out 
on a limb and invent and invest in their own ideas.
    Mr. and Mrs. Earnest L. Calvert
    Rt. 1 Box 699
    Camdenton, Mo. 65020
    [email protected]



MTC-00009379

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Departmet of Justice:
    It is time to bring this most unfortunate chapter, the lawsuit 
against Microsoft, of our nations history to a close. I 
wholeheartedly support the settlement as drafted between the nine 
states and the Federal Government; and only wish to include the 
suggestion that time is a wasting!
    John S. Hoke
    1146 Fairways
    Lebanon, TN 37087
    615-443-3633 (H)
    615-405-2954 (Cell)



MTC-00009380

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:35pm

[[Page 25147]]

Subject: End Government attack on Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    The Clinton Administration has past. Hopefully the multiple 
abuses of the Justice Department has past with them. Please end this 
travesty of justice against Microsoft. Being successful should not 
be a crime.
    Steve Hunt
    6429 Colchester RD
    Fairfax Station, VA 22039



MTC-00009381

From: Mike (038) Sandra Bottorff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:43pm
Subject: PLEASE!
    PLEASE!
    It is time to leave Microsoft and Bill Gates alone!
    Stop the Clinton-ista type persecution!
    Sandra Bottorff
    12750 170th Avenue
    LeRoy, Michigan 49655



MTC-00009382

From: Bruce Sparks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Drop the stupid persecution of a company that has excelled. It 
has become fashionable in America to penalize those that have done 
well, and reward those that can't make it on their own. Miocrosoft 
has done more that any other company to advance technology in 
America. No, I don't have any interest in Microsoft, (wish I had 
bought their stock years ago) other than a belief that excellence 
should be rewarded, not penalized.



MTC-00009383

From: William R Mattingly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:53pm
Subject: End Anti-Trust Law Abuse
    OK! Finally, the Clinton era is over (Thank GOD!) and now it's 
past time to end the unlawful disruption of business at Microsoft. 
Clinton and his anti business, anti-American antics have cost the 
taxpayer millions of dollars. Money which would have been better 
spent tracking these cowardly terrorists such as bin laden. Let's 
get back to better business please and end the charade.



MTC-00009384

From: Lou Placette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust suit
    I am appalled at the flagrant disregard Microsoft has for the 
laws of the U.S. The only benevolent monopoly that has been in the 
20th century was AT&T which provided very low cost phone service to 
the nation. It was broken up and phone service has been less than 
adequate since.
    Microsoft, on the other hand, forces inferior software on buyers 
of computers and willfully suppresses other providers from competing 
in a free market society. The cost is maintained at a high level 
because no competition is allowed.
    The fact that no punishment or dissolution of the company has 
occurred so far, feeds the idea that judges can be bought off by 
Bill Gates because he has the billions necessary to find anyone's 
price.
    I urge you to uphold the welfare of the nation and dissolve the 
Microsoft monopoly so that other companies can compete in a fair 
market allowing consumers to have choices for their spending which 
stimulates the economy and provides jobs in technology.
    Thank you for hearing my concerns,
    Elsie B. Placette



MTC-00009385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settement
    I hope the settlement as proposed can be accepted soon. I have 
never felt comfortable about this entire mess, but I believe the 
settlement is at least fair to most parties involved. I thank 
Microsoft every day for my access to the internet through the 
Microsoft network that powers WebTV. I want Microsoft to be able to 
get back to business doing what they do best, i.e. make competetive 
products, and let the free market decide who's product they want. I 
thank you for your time.
    Sincerely yours,
    Rick Valusek



MTC-00009386

From: William Bethel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:52pm
Subject: (no subject)
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    William Bethel



MTC-00009387

From: F M Byford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:50pm
Subject: Support
    I support the Microsoft settlement. Let's get it over with.



MTC-00009388

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    The US court has come to an agreement with Microsoft. Please 
accept this agreement and let Microsoft get on with its business.
    Murray Paterson
    [email protected]



MTC-00009389

From: Cathleen Wedlake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:57pm
Subject: RE: Message
    Dear Microsoft
    I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
    Thank You!
    Sincerely,
    Cathleen Wedlake



MTC-00009391

From: Cheryl Caraglior
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:12pm
Subject: Rediculus lawsuit
    It is time to end a rediculus witch hunt of Microsoft which 
Clinton began. Too much taxpayer monies have been wasted on this as 
is. Let consumers decide what is in their own best interest. 
Microsoft may have bundled its browser on Windows systems, but 
nothing prevented the public from installing whatever browser they 
chose to.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Caraglior



MTC-00009392

From: Kim Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Date : Jan 7, 2002 To : Department Of 
Justice From : William G Peterson Subject : Microsoft Settlement
    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 have read extensively material and document on this case and 
settlement including : ``Complaint(5/18/1998)'', ``Stipulation(11/
06/2001)'', and ``Competitive Impact Statement(11/15/2001)''. Its a 
good thing you folks and JANET RENO weren't arount at the turn of 
the last century. If you were I wouldn't be driving my FORD.
    The Departmment Of Justice gave Microsoft very strong order, 
stronger than the compitition complaint about. I'm very happy that 
Microsoft agreea to this final settlement.
    Sincerely
    William G Peterson



MTC-00009393

From: Lester Hopper Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To The Justice Dpartment,
    I purchased windows95 with the IE4.0 together several years ago 
and did not mind a bit. Should a Jury have any say so about this, 
the Law or laws used to incriminate this Nations leading contributor 
to our economy would be nullified. I am aware of Mr. Gates and what 
he did but many othe free downloads are available and were then. It 
is also fact that some of Microsofts competitors held contracts with 
the US and installed faulty servers and software. Clinton in my 
opinion is who we should be prosecuting for his treasonous acts of 
selling some of our most Secret Information to China while 
prosecuting Mr. Gates.
    These facts could only be denied by LIARS!!!!!!!!
    Lester Hopper
    6294 Southlake Drive
    Hickory NC 28601



MTC-00009394

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25148]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:04pm
Subject: Settlement
    This lawsuit has done enought damage to the economy of this 
country. More than enough consideration has been given to the 
issues. Let's accept the judgement and move on.
    Virginia Heilman



MTC-00009397

From: Ross Nooney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT TRIAL
    When are we going to give up on prosecuting Microsoft for being 
such a good company. I own no stock, but hate to see my tax dollars 
being wasted. Oracle, Sun Systems, etc. . . . need to get on with 
their business. Prosecute terrorists, organized crime etc. . . ., 
but be done with Microsoft already!



MTC-00009398

From: andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I, Joel Mann, support the Microsoft settlement.



MTC-00009399

From: Rudolph Hensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (ENOUGH IS ENOUGH)
    I support the Justice Department Microsoft settlement, as a 
consumer and taxpayer. Stop the financial waste of this legal 
maneuvers. Consider the roots of Microsoft, etc., etc., and the 
detriment to free enterprise.
    Rudolph Hensley
    912-876-6398
    401 Club Drive
    Hinesville, GA 31313



MTC-00009400

From: donna faye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:14pm
Subject: Ending the Clinton-era
    Please end the Clinton-era of Anti-trust.
    Thanks



MTC-00009401

From: Norm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:16pm
Subject: microsoft
    I would like to see the action against Microsoft dropped. No 
punishment necessary.



MTC-00009402

From: Carol Wilkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:07pm
Subject: Clinton-era Anti-trust law
    The Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse was wrong, and I want to 
see it ended.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Wilkins



MTC-00009403

From: ROBERT MOELLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:21pm
Subject: Justice Department,
    Justice Department,
    It is my opinion that it is in the best interest of the United 
States to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
    Microsoft got to where they are by hard work and American free 
enterprise. They should not be penalized for being an over achiever. 
They have a line of great products that greatly enhances American 
business and personal use of computers. For example: if a cow 
produces more milk the farmer does not reduce its amount of feed. 
No; he gives it more grain thus encourages it to produce more milk!
    By penalizing Microsoft you are telling other businesses not to 
over produce least they face the same consequences thereby limiting 
economic growth.
    Robert Moeller
    4350 E. River Rd.
    Mt. Pleasant, Mi. 48858
    [email protected]



MTC-00009404

From: bradley c francis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:29pm
Subject: microsoft
    Leave Gates and his company alone, he has no more a monopoly 
then the power company, postal service, water company , This is free 
enterprise, suppy and demand and if he supplies better so be it . . 
. just like the power co, the postal service and everyones water 
companies so I say leave him and his company alone and focus on real 
hurtful things like child abusers and predators.



MTC-00009405

From: Nicole Demas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:32pm
Subject: Enough's enough
    Microsoft has spent millions defending itself. When I think of 
the software applications that kind of money could have gone toward 
I find it insane. Let them do what they do best. The DOJ should 
concentrate on terrorists, organised crime families and all the 
undesirable elements who belong behind bars for life, not a company 
that can make our lives better, richer and more enjoyable.



MTC-00009406

From: Harold Cantley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:36pm
Subject: settlement
    I think you should leave Microsoft along, they have provided 
great service to the American Public. All the litigation cost lack 
business tax is passed on to the consumer, so the longer you keep 
them in court the more it coasts we the people so let stop.
    Thanks
    Harold Cantley



MTC-00009407

From: Service Plus--Jason Kozdra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    I believe, with many others, that Microsoft has made agreements 
with hardware vendors, to develop their products so that they will 
not operate on ``alternative operating systems'', especially those 
that are Open-Source, such as Linux, and some which are not Open 
Source, but which are given away at no charge, such as BeOS's 
Personal Edition. It is nearly impossible to purchase a PC in the 
United States without some version of Microsoft Windows being 
included on it (OEM). The cost for this operating system is passed 
along to the end user, whether he or she uses Windows or not, even 
if that person purchases that PC with the intent to install an 
alternative operating system on it.
    Many of these users, due to the aforementioned lack of support 
for alternative operating systems by hardware vendors, are forced to 
switch back to a Windows operating system, just so that their PC 
hardware will work.
    There are plenty of developers out there who would develop 
drivers that would make vendor's hardware work in the alternative 
operating systems. It is not a lack of diligence that keeps these 
developers from creating drivers for the alternative operating 
system if they want to, it is the alleged agreements made between 
Microsoft and hardware vendors not to release the necessary 
information to these developers. This forces millions of users to 
``conform'' to the Microsoft operating systems, strengthening the 
Microsoft Monopoly.
    I do not believe that settlement discussion should proceed any 
further until any alleged agreements between Microsoft and hardware 
vendors is investigated.
    Thank you,
    Jason Daniel Kozdra
    5893 Pine Top Road
    Blairsville, GA 30512



MTC-00009408

From: Marc Treppler (038) Angela Grupas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think it is time to leave well enough alone. Microsoft is 
doing a great job for everyone concerned.
    Without them we will have chaos with no clear standard and no 
usable interconnection between systems.
    It is wonderful that they have the operating system and the 
applications that work together to provide true benefit for the 
user. Prior to MS back before DOS, PC's where little more than toys 
for nurds.
    Everyone had a program that did very little and didn't work with 
anything else. Users had to learn every program from scratch. Even 
the most basic things like saving a file had to be re-learned 
because there was no standardization. LET Microsoft alone and QUITE 
SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS ON A NON-ISSUE. If MS is so bad don't buy 
it. There are other choices--you can use Lenex, Apple, Sun, etc.

[[Page 25149]]

    Use whatever you like. Buy whatever you like. MS is not 
monopolizing the industry they are just doing the best job for the 
consumer.
    Marc Treppler PE



MTC-00009409

From: Duffy, Bob W Mr USAMISSA
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/7/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    CC: Duffy, Bob W Mr USAMISSA
    To the DOJ:
    1. I have always been opposed to the DOJ anti-trust case against 
Microsoft. Reference my pervious comments in my letter to President 
Bush (below).
    2. I have always been opposed to the actions of the 9 states 
that are seeking remedies above those which the majority of the 
states and the Federal Government agreed to in the initial 
settlement agreement.
    3. I am adamantly opposed to any further escalation in the 
remedies imposed upon Microsoft via any means.
    4. With respect to the 9 states that did not agree to the 
initial settlement: they represent a MINORITY faction considering . 
. . only 19 of 50 states joined the DOJ suite (Texas dropped out)--
38% of the 50 states sued--62% of the states did NOT sue--only 9 
states opposed the settlement . . . 18% of the 50 states--47% of the 
19 states that remained a party to the DOJ suite--82% of the states 
either did not sue or were in agreement with the settlement. 
Conclusion: The DOJ and 82% of the 50 states favored the settlement 
. . . 18% of the states did not.
    My position on this matter: The court should approve the 
settlement that the DOJ and 10 states have agreed to.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Duffy
    7811 Pinebrook Dr
    San Antonio, TX 78230-4810
    My letter to President Bush:
    Dear President Bush:
    I am becoming increasingly displeased with the prolonged attack 
by the state and federal governments on the behalf of Microsoft 
competitors via the misguided antitrust suite initiated by the 
Clinton Administration. Not satisfied to remain within the scope of 
the current bogus allegations, the states are once again attempting 
to muddy the waters with complaints and allegations antitrust 
violation claims directed against the next generation of innovative 
products that are beneficial to the consumer . . . Windows XP and 
.net.
    The only reason the antitrust case got past the district court 
level was because David Boise was able to befuddle a senile, 
computer illiterate district court judge who placed more emphasis on 
his personal biases than the hard facts relating to a rapidly 
changing technological revolution. His biggest complaint against 
Microsoft was the belligerent attitudes of the MS executives--they 
were justified in being belligerent solely on the basis that their 
valuable time was being wasted in court defending themselves against 
the Govt bullies and their state cronies and competitors (the same 
competitors who had to resort to Govt subsidized competition because 
they had already lost the battle in the open market place).
    I have personally experienced the technology evolution. By 
profession I am classified as a computer specialist. My background 
includes programming and systems analysis and development--beginning 
in 1971. I have lived the transition from the mainframe to the 
desktop PC to the networked PC to the WEB/.com explosion. Anyone 
with similar experience can attest to the incompatibility nightmares 
of the early transition from centralized processing on the mainframe 
to the total chaos of incompatible hardware and software on the 
desktop linked by only the ``sneaker net'' of hand carried (or snail 
mailed) 360 KB 5\1/4\ in floppy disks. There was no 
interoperability, compatibility or common operating standards. There 
were no standard networking environments, this is another story but 
one that has a good ending at least the Govt didn't try to legislate 
the innovation out of it as it is attempting to do to Microsoft.
    Microsoft observed this inefficiency in the market place and 
listened to the anguish of the early PC users and developed a 
strategy that made things easier for the end user, the computer 
novice--the average consumer that did not want to have to become a 
techno guru to get something done. Microsoft transformed the PC into 
a tool that provided value to the consumer by enabling the consumer 
to be more productive via a user friendly environment--Hardware, 
Operating system and an interoperable suite of productivity oriented 
software. This constant focus on integration for the betterment of 
the end user experience is why Microsoft has evolved to being the 
800 pound gorilla of the desktop, because the consumers did not want 
the ``best mousetrap ever built''--they wanted one that was easy to 
set and could actually catch mice.
    In my own personal evolution I have been exposed to almost all 
of Microsoft's competitors' products . . . Word Perfect, Lotus 123, 
notes, ccmail . . . Sun Solaris, Unix . . . Novell, Apple, IBM PC 
DOS, 0S/2 . . . Harvard Graphics . . . Correll Draw . . . All good 
products but one almost had to become a PC techno-nerd-geek to get 
something done and God help you if you had to get one product to 
read something from a different product that had been sent to you 
via an email attachment, provided your email was compatible with the 
sender's email. These were the days when you had to have that young 
pimple faced smart aleck ``go to guy'' that knew the option, or 
setting, or the right format conversion, and what was most 
irritating is the fact he got the fix or the Utility program some 
somewhere that only the true nerd-geeks-who-didn't-have-life-
outside-of-his (always a ``he''--never a ``she'')-pc knew about. In 
short, Microsoft's competitors were 100% focused on the best whiz 
banged techno solutions and products in a market that was evolving 
into a consumer commodity world--the consumer wanted something that 
was easy to use, did something of value, something that could be 
done again (repetitive) without taking notes, and something that did 
not break (reliable)--Microsoft listen to and satisfied the needs of 
the people who were out there, the consumers. Their competitors lost 
sight of this and have suffered the fate of many who, in the past, 
did not see the handwriting on the wall, how many buggy whip 
companies are left??? what about those Beta formatted VCR tapes, how 
many 8-Track tapes are there?
    When Microsoft got the PC and the Work Stations hitting on all 
cylinders with Windows 3.x . . . Windows95 . . . they ported the 
same user-friendly operating system with the same GUI and ``point 
and click'' behavior to the Server platform . . . What a concept??? 
take something that everyone is already familiar with on the PC and 
stick with it . . . don't reinvent the wheel, don't try to razzle-
dazzle people with new whiz bang OS, directory systems, commands and 
super cool behavior . . . stick with the KISS approach . . . Keep It 
Simple Stupid! This approach is why Microsoft is the dominant 
computer Software, internet and networking solutions provider in the 
world--it has nothing to do with anti-competitive behavior. As some 
who has professionally evolved along with Microsoft I'd like to 
share with you some interesting personal observations, early in the 
game when Microsoft was coming out with their 1st generation 
products intentionally designed to be simple and easy to use--these 
same competitors (and a few that aren't around any more) actually 
snickered and ridiculed Microsoft's feeble attempts at trying to 
compete with their hot shot best of class leading edge (bleeding 
edge??) technology . . . I have had sales reps tell me personally 
that Microsoft could not compete with their products, where did all 
the IBM OS/2 PCs go??? Has UNIX vi replaced MS editors, where did 
Netware go??? All of these products failed . . . not because they 
were inferior but because they did not focus on the needs of their 
markets, the changes in the market place--and most importantly, 
because of their hatred for Microsoft they purposely omitted 
Microsoft friendly interoperability features, at their peril.
    Today we observe the US Justice department still engaged in a 
punitive action against a company that has succeeded in a market 
place seething with competitors who's primary objective was to crush 
Microsoft . . . all one has to find out who they were is read the 
list of the companies who testified on behalf of the Justice 
department. Most of the states involved are the home states of these 
same MS competitors. There is not a single individual, private 
company, local, state or Federal Govt agency that does not reap the 
benefits of Microsoft's innovative technology on a daily basis.
    Now that we are in this WAR on Terrorism, I ask of my elected 
officials to observe just how similar the behavior of those against 
Microsoft is to that of the terrorists is to the global symbol of 
freedom, it seems that any one, any company, any nation that attains 
the pinnacle of success and become an icon of something good and 
successful becomes a target to those who have failed. I find it very 
disturbing that the Bush administration has not put a stop to the 
persecution of Microsoft that seemed to be the ``Jihad'' of the 
Clinton Justice department.

[[Page 25150]]

    Given the situation we are in, the government should be 
appreciative of the fact that Microsoft has evolved as the PC and 
networking standard--one that the Govt can embrace and turn to for 
the propose of securing America's information highway . . . 
Microsoft has the technology and because it has become the de fecto 
``standard'' security strategies can easily be designed around this 
technology, rather than wasting valuable Microsoft resources in a 
protracted ill-advised anti-trust battle, the federal and state 
leadership should embrace Microsoft as a valued partner in the ``War 
on Terrorism''.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Duffy
    7811 Pinebrook Dr
    San Antonio, TX 78230-4810



MTC-00009410

From: R. G. Montgomery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:40pm
Subject: Don't penalize sucess.
    It is the view of the left, i.e., former President Clinton and 
former Atny Gen Reno, that sucess is wrong. Such is the basis of the 
case against Microsoft.
    Bill Gates, et al, built a ``better mousetrap'' and made money 
due to their superior product. This shouldn't be actionable. 
Whatever ``monopolizing'' was done, if it were in violation of law, 
is a minor matter. Deal with it as a minor matter. Shut out the 
individual states who are now trying to turn a profit from 
Microsoft's misfortune.
    Please un-socialize and de-politicize the Justice Department.
    Thank you very much,
    R. G. Montgomery



MTC-00009411

From: trina hollander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:42pm
Subject: comment
    We support the Microsoft settlement. We want to see an end to 
the Clinton era anti-trust law abuse.
    Sincerely,
    Trina & John Hollander
    Calhoun, KY



MTC-00009412

From: Brenda Ann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:43pm
Subject: Re: Anti-trustlaw abuse
    To Whom it May Concern,
    Please end this Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse with the 
Microsoft case! It's such a waste of money, time and talent that 
could be spent on something that is truly illegal. In my view, this 
is a case of, class envy, and liberals promoting socialism. Very 
dangerous business.
    Thank you,
    Brenda Shumate
    Marysville, Ca.



MTC-00009413

From: Patrick Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi just wanted to write a quick email to voice my concern that 
something is done about Microsoft and there tactics so that we can 
have real choices for our operating system. I would at the very 
least like to see duel-boot options mandatory on all new computers 
so that other operating systems like Linux and BeOS have a chance in 
the future.
    Thanks
    Patrick Lawrence



MTC-00009414

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen I wish to express my frustration with the 
government's continuous pursuit of the Anti-Trust Case against 
Microsoft. I believe that the case should be settled and finalized. 
Too much money has already been spent trying this case. I would have 
rather seen the money spent on education.
    It it my belief that Microsoft has enabled the general public to 
be able to use Personal Computers and has enhanced the industry with 
it's innovation. Stop spending our tax dollars on this case and 
spend it instead on bettering our education system.
    Thank you for reading my comments.
    Mary F. Kush



MTC-00009415

From: Gabriel Georgeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Law suit
    Dear justice Department: Microsoft has stole,pirated, and 
crumbled companies with their literally stealing the work of many 
software developers. It also has a strangle hold on a large part of 
the hardware companies that threaten Microsoft. The Microsoft system 
is a drag on many users, due to the unreliability of Microsoft 
Windows crashing, hard to recover your computer to open, and run 
after multiple crashes. Having to call for help, that you are 
charged $34.00 per hour for over the phone assistance to get your 
lousy Microsoft Windows back up and running from their technicians. 
It is a said situation the way Microsoft has a strangle hold on 
computer users. Please free computer users to have a open source 
operating system (example Lynux), and open Microsoft's hold by 
having the coding all of their software. Their software to where you 
have no choice but to be in a stangle hold of MICROSOFT. It is a 
situation computer users deserve better in these United States of 
America.
    SET US FREE, Please SET US FREE.
    Gabriel T. Georgeff
    1217 SW Morningside Drive
    Blue Springs, MO 64015-4905



MTC-00009416

From: s(038)s
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:56pm
Subject: leave microsoft alone



MTC-00009417

From: Beri Bek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I wish the government would just leave Microsoft alone. A 
monopoly does not exist. It would really help the economy if this 
case was dropped.
    Beri B. Bek
    Kentwood, MI
    49508-6556



MTC-00009418

From: Pamela Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:56pm
Subject: Ending Clinton Anti-trust abuse
    To whom it may concern:
    You have my full support to do what is just and lawful to 
correct any abuses allowed through the Clinton years. I know that 
you will know just what to do.
    Sincerely yours,
    Pamela J. Schmidt



MTC-00009419

From: Vivek Velso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOUDear DoJ Rep; I 
have observed the ongoing economic trend for the past years, and, I 
would like to offer my suggestions for sustaining growth in the 
high-speed digital age.
    It gives me immense pleasure to write about Microsoft's approach 
in the industry, which is based on central theme of Rapid 
Innovation.
    The full credit goes to key strategies played by Microsoft and 
the Leadership demostrated in bringing the great innovations to 
life, encouraging people, engaging customers with their feedback on 
products which can change the future in a ``boundaryless'' fashion. 
I appreciate Microsoft's customer centric policies, and I am fully 
confident that very soon, the new image of Microsoft's Innovation 
will take the responsibility for upholding and rolling out a new 
Digital Age never experienced before.
    Today, the freedom to innovate and to keep America rolling is 
only possible after removing the bureaucratic hurdles from the 
society, and encourage key players like Microsoft to keep innovating 
at speed of thought.
    There are many aspects currectly worked upon by Microsoft which 
need your utmost support for the freedom to innovate-- Digital 
Signatures which can also benefit FAA, Wireless with .NET 
Infrastructure for security, Education Telecommunication policies 
e.Business Customer Trust and Privacy
    We, as the end consumers and residents are trying our level best 
to suppport Microsoft with all means like providing inputs for next 
generation of Internet Protocol, .NET, beta testing, product 
evaluation, to name a few.
    I have also urged Microsoft to publish Bumper Stickers, and 
dynamic NewsFlashs for encouraging their spirit of innovation.
    Microsoft has always respected small emerging companies and 
entrepreneurs worldwide, not only in Ohio, who are working hard and 
committed to innovation by sharing technology ideas and creating

[[Page 25151]]

value added partnerships for enabling win-win solutions.
    Only the hurdles of few arrogant CEO and open minded gurus have 
misled the path towards innovation and creating Economic value add. 
This will only add towards the worst scenarios of global recession 
in a cascading fashion, thereby impacting every vertical industry.
    I appreciate your valuable time and hope that my views will go 
in a long way to establish a valuable communication link for 
sustaining ever expanding growth in the Digital Economy, which is 
only possible by the FREEDOM TO INNOVATE...
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Vivek Velso
    2216 Albemarle Dr Apt#102
    Fairfield, OH 45014-4343
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:20 PM
Subject: 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-00009420

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled now. There should be no 
further litigation.
    Audrey K. Leeser
    723 Southmeadow Circle
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45231



MTC-00009421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  9:57pm
Subject: (no subject)
    regarding your e-mail on microsoft court case i do believe that 
consideration should be given to a lower settlement figure and bring 
this case to an end.



MTC-00009422

From: Daryl D.Lettie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:02pm
Subject:
    DROP IT DROP IT



MTC-00009423

From: Drew D. Read
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:14pm
Subject: Stop Wasting Our Money
    Stop spending my tax dollars on battling Microsoft anti trust 
lawsuits.
    It's a free market economy and if other companies can't compete 
against Microsoft, they should go out of business.
    If you need to find a good cause to spend our tax dollars 
fighting, try reverse discrimination with Affirmative Action. They 
mandate lesser qualified ethnic minorities just to meet the lawful 
quota. I see this happen first hand in the state university system 
in PA. If I were a parent with a college student and I knew they 
weren't getting the most qualified professor for the money, I would 
be furious. Yet this is exactly what's going on today in our 
education system. It's happening in other areas also. People should 
be hired on qualifications, not skin color or ethnic backgrounds in 
order to meet quotas.
    Have a great day.
    Drew D. Read



MTC-00009424

From: Frank Allegretta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am interested in taking part of worldwide network that is 
working on getting the BeOS or equivalent back into the market 
place, but there is no hope of success if the following issues 
aren't addressed: examples: open Office file formats, Win32 APIs, 
make dual-boot options mandatory, etc...''
    Best regards,
    Frank Allegretta
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00009425

From: Pat Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear USDOJ,
    Please settle the Microsoft case soon and let the country get to 
work using this standard.
    The private sector can not afford to create custom programs like 
the federal government.
    The MS windows, explorer and family of products work with great 
success and dependability.
    Patrick and Alexis Riley
    262-15-6722, 527-11-3644
    El Cajon, CA 92021



MTC-00009426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department Of Justice,
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    1. MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested 
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either 
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can 
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    2. The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    3. The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    4. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
    The above facts and opinions have been drawn up by a non-profit 
group who's goal is to shed some light on things that have become 
apparent in the consumer market concerning the way Microsoft has 
acted with its monopoly power. The consumer and its freedom of 
choice has been heavily damaged by such misconduct from Microsoft. 
As you and I know, the consumer reality has been tarnished into 
thinking that Microsoft and its products are the only choice or 
alternative to solutions that not too many years ago had

[[Page 25152]]

flourished with products and solutions from a wide range and it is 
understandable that some products and/or solutions would and will 
disappear.
    You and I usually assume (by natural occurrence) now that there 
are no alternatives for products and/or solutions in the computing 
world when it comes to the PC market other than Microsoft and 
Windows... yeah sure there are alternatives, but most of the 
consumer market is blind to these alternatives due to Microsoft's 
strangle hold on the OEMs with its strict licensing issues. Is 
Microsoft totally at fault over this?... NO! I think that the OEMs 
should be also held accountable for irresponsibility to the consumer 
market by forcing a product and/or solution in giving the consumers 
no freedom of choice and blinding them from the alternatives and 
staging such a market as if Microsoft and Windows is the only choice 
by default.
    I do not wish for Microsoft to be split as a company, in my 
opinion that would only hurt the consumer market even more and hide 
the fact that Microsoft is still Microsoft. I also believe the 
latest settlement offer is only going to make Micrsoft's monopoly 
more powerful with forcing Microsoft to donate Billions of dollars 
worth of products and/or solutions (which would cost only pennies 
for Microsoft) to the educational sector in need of such is only 
going to worsen the blow to the rest of the competitors affected by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices already. I am in no way 
undermining your decision or proposal of settlement, but I think 
that Microsoft would have another advantage over the rest of the 
industry in the education market by planting Microsoft's reach in 
the way of the back door so to speak. The schools in need should be 
given donations of a cash amount and let the schools decide on what 
is needed for their children, not Microsoft!
    I as a consumer feel that Microsoft has heavily damaged the 
freedom of the consumer in a way that has almost damaged the economy 
of the US and the economies around the world. I have much faith in 
you, the Department Of Justice and I feel that you will resolve and 
bring to justice that is rightly deserved to the consumer world and 
hopefully protect us (as you always have) from such dangers to our 
way of life and our freedom of choice as our ancestors fought so 
hard to establish in America. I believe you will do the right thing. 
I thank you very much for your time and patience in reading this 
letter and good luck to you.
    Best Regards...
    Dennis



MTC-00009427

From: Carma Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:25pm
Subject: I want to end the Clinton era.
    I want to end the Clinton era.
    Carma Woodward



MTC-00009428

From: Hans Schieder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Gentlemen:
    Please cease your foolish and wasteful trial against Microsoft.
    An American company should not be penalized for having been 
successful. Let others who would like to make money in that field 
also be as creative as Microsoft was to earn their share of the 
market rather than crying to the courts.
    Sincerely,
    Hans Schieder



MTC-00009429

From: Bruce Faling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I understand that the US Department of Justice is seeking 
opinions of concerned citizens over the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft Corporation and the US Department of Justice. My opinions 
on said settlement appear below: Contrary to popular belief, 
Microsoft Corporation wields no power over their customers, 
potential customers, computer manufacturers, competitors, or the 
population at large.
    As a private company, Microsoft relies upon voluntary 
transactions with its customers in order to continue to do business. 
Customers, potential customers, and computer manufacturers alike are 
under no obligation to accept Microsoft Corporation's terms before 
buying and using its products. They are free to accept, decline, or 
ask to amend the terms, but they cannot be ``made'' to do anything 
as such. That Microsoft has sold millions of copies of its broad 
offerings is evidence that people have accepted their terms 
voluntarily in large numbers, and thus any claims of harm 
perpetrated against consumers is baseless.
    In short, Microsoft has done no wrong. That being the case, any 
proposed ``settlement'' cannot sensibly be construed as ``fair,'' to 
either the shareholders of Microsoft or their customers. Being how 
this settlement, by its very nature, must force Microsoft to operate 
in ways it did not see fit to do voluntarily, I must condemn the 
settlement for what it most apparently is: An attempt to limit the 
competitiveness of Microsoft for the benefit of its rivals. The 
marketplace of software products has clearly --and freely-- chosen 
Microsoft.
    That last statement is significant. The ignorance of many people 
of the difference between high market share and true power astounds. 
However, the difference is real. Where Microsoft relies upon 
voluntary exchange with its customers for its very existence; true 
coercive agencies, such as the US Department of Justice, require no 
such consent from *its* ``customers.'' Funded by monies expropriated 
from productive persons, their function is to force people, and 
associations of people, to comply with written law.
    Granted, such force is not always employed, but the threat and 
ability to employ it is always present. Consent cannot rightly be 
said to be given under such circumstances. This is true power. It is 
clearly demonstrable that it is by no means the equivalent to 
attaining a high market share. Having said that, I can only 
recommend dropping the proposed settlement out of hand as well as 
the very suit it was meant to settle in the first place.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Faling



MTC-00009430

From: George Polycrates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Ladies & Gentlemen,
    I am a Civil Engineer. I remember how intimidating was at the 
beginning to use computers even though I had experience from my 
schooling. I still see people that they are afraid to get involved 
with the computers. I have bought computer from GATEWAY, DELL, 
COMPAQUE, PACKARD, HP AND



MTC-00009431

From: Lou Cori
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:36pm
Subject: Get Though
    Bill Gates has been crapping on the competition and the buying 
public from the word ``GO''. He doesn't leave a choice to anyone. I 
resented the way that he screwed Netscape and then tried to force 
people to use his Internet program without any choice. This scum 
ball has destroyed more companies than you could possibly name. Even 
the computer manufacturer's have little choice in how they place 
software on their products. He has also forced the software 
magazine's to use his product article descriptions to the determent 
of any competitor. Don't let up on him.



MTC-00009432

From: Danny Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:38pm
Subject: Hidden Microsoft Training Sham
    Please restrict the Microsoft training scam they are 
perpetrating on people like myself. Microsoft is conspiring with a 
group of approved training centers, book publishers, and testing 
centers to fraudulently take our money in a training program scam.
    At age 53, I was ``downsized'' by my former employer. To enhance 
my ability to find work, I spent $8,000 of my savings and 200-plus 
hours of classroom time in a ``Microsoft approved'' training school, 
using ``Microsoft approved'' textbooks, taking a series of 6 
``Microsoft approved'' exams at a ``Microsoft approved'' test center 
(at $100 per pop) to obtain my Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer 
certification (MCSE)... only to be notified by Microsoft that they 
have decided to make all MCSE's retake their exams over mostly the 
same material to remain certified. NONE of the students who paid 
their thousands of dollars in fees were ever told that the 
certifications could be cancelled at the whim of Microsoft in order 
to keep their relationships with their training centers, text 
publishers, and testing centers secure and very profitable.
    These Microsoft approved training centers, text book publishers, 
and testing centers MUST have a constant flow of students to keep 
profitable and in business. In addition,

[[Page 25153]]

Microsoft gets a cut of the action at each level.
    I know improvements are made in the software over time, and have 
I have no problem taking one or even two exams over the software 
improvements to keep current. However, to make us take all (now 
SEVEN) exams over 75% of the same material has only one purpose--to 
keep the grist in the Microsoft training mills and keep their 
approved training partners, approved text publishers, and approved 
test centers busy and profitable.
    I pointed out to Microsoft that CPAs, Attornys, and MDs attend 
classes and seminars to keep current on changes in their profession, 
but they do not have to retake all the exams of the CPA exam, bar 
exam, or medical boards every time rules, laws or procedures change.
    Microsoft, as a monopoly, has said ``too bad'', you must retake 
exams over the same material at our approved test centers, anyway. 
Please insist that they can put together tests covering changes to 
their software and make us take them, but that they cannot insist 
that we be forced to retake exams over already tested material to 
remain current.
    To do otherwise gives Microsoft permission to use its monopoly 
power to force us to spend many thousands of dollars in courses and 
testing that no other profession is compelled to do. Microsoft can 
do for one reason only--they are a monopoly and if we don't like it, 
tough!
    Thank you.
    Danny Brown
    15818 Knoll Lake Drive
    Houston, Texas 77095
    Tel. 281-859-5174
    [email protected]



MTC-00009433

From: Chris Chauvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft--Justice Dept. Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am just an average citizen, but I would like to express my 
opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
    It seems to me that all that would be accomplished by not 
settling would be to punish Microsoft for becoming a great company 
that the U.S. can be proud to call our own. All this so that the 
competition who would and does do the same marketing practices when 
they are given the chance can be satisfied.
    Our country was not founded on condeming free enterprise.
    Christine Chauvin
    Billings, Montana



MTC-00009434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NANCY MOREHEAD
    638 Heidi Lane
    Mansfield, OH 44904
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to request that there be no more litigation in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case, and that the federal investigation be 
brought to a close with the agreed settlement that you reached with 
Microsoft. A balanced, equitable settlement has been negotiated 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department, and this document 
should put the matter to rest.
    The agreement will require Microsoft to share information, and 
to change some of its marketing and licensing practices, provisions 
for those who felt they weren't getting a fair shot at the market. 
The settlement you developed includes definite, realistic 
provisions, which will create more openness throughout the I.T. 
industry. This settlement will be beneficial because it will improve 
the software field, and--perhaps most importantly end this case once 
and for all.
    I hope you will be able to work towards bringing this case to 
conclusion. Please continue your fantastic work supporting the 
settlement from the Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Morehead



MTC-00009435

From: Greg Peck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I would strongly support the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. It is in the best interests of the industry and the 
economy in general. There has been enough time and money spent on 
this case.
    Microsoft has gone out of its way in meeting the conditions of 
the settlement. I would like to see Microsoft turn its creative 
energies into new technology and struggling with this case.
    Greg Peck



MTC-00009436

From: Tim Coy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft did not get there by creating poor software!
    The American dream is to be able to become a Microsoft by having 
a great product and great timing. Its seems as time passes those 
that are the failures now use the court system to attach those who 
make it. The fallacy is that Microsoft is where it is because it a 
Monopoly, this is a joke. I can remember when Windows was a joke and 
Mac OS was the way to go. As Mac laughed at Windows, Microsoft 
always went to consumer and asked how can we make or software 
better. The result is that Microsoft did build a much better OS than 
Mac. This a true example of the ``tortoise and hair''. I wish you 
would quit trying to destroy success. Jealousy in the power of the 
courts system is scary.
    Tim Coy



MTC-00009437

From: Jim Illback
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:03pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Case
    I believe that the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement case's 
proposed settlement is in the 60-day comment period which started 
11/28. Here are my comments.
    I am absolutely appalled that the settlement has not rectified 
the basic issue which is monopolistic control over PC suppliers. 
When I go to the Dell Computer web page, there is ONLY Microsoft 
Operating Systems available to my on the portable PC that I desire. 
That is the problem. I don't want to be FORCED into choosing a 
Microsoft OS, especially not XP. Please get this problem fixed with 
your settlement, not just let go. The DOJ has been at this since 
before Janet Reno and their ``victories'' have been so benign that 
it has only re-empowered Microsoft to higher bullying tactics. FIX 
THE PROBLEM-- DIVIDE THE COMPANY ALREADY. Hold them accountable for 
their illegal actions, so consumers like me will have a choice of 
Operating Systems on Dell (or any other) computer. Do your job 
already!
    Jim Illback
    PO Box 627
    Ravensdale, WA 98051
    425 965-6871
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009438

From: Larry Burkett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The law requires a public comment period between now and January 
28th after which the District Court will determine whether the 
Microsoft settlement is in the ``public interest.''
    My comment is in support of the Microsoft settlement. In my 
opinion, Microsoft, while not perfect, has done more to advance 
computer usage by the general public than any other single company.
    sincerely,
    Lawrence L. Burkett,
    30 Ebersohl Cir,
    Whitehouse Station, NJ 08889
    ([email protected])



MTC-00009440

From: J. Thomas Broyles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:19pm
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse
    I think the Justice Department needs to move on and away from 
the pursuit of Microsoft. I believe Clinton and Reno's pursuit of 
this fine company precipitated the decline in the economy triggered 
by the major drop in the stock market.
    J. Thomas Broyles M.D. and victim of the Clinton follies



MTC-00009441

From: Mary Jo Reddick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    We think it is a tough but fair settlement--for all parties 
involved. Stop wasting the tax payers money-- competition is 
wonderful for consumers like our family. We are an average working 
family who appreciate good quality products at fair prices that 
Microsoft has made available to us. We don't appreciate our

[[Page 25154]]

hard earned tax money being wasted on frivolous, vengeful lawsuits. 
Enough already.
    Donald and Mary Jo Reddick
    Lancaster, CA



MTC-00009442

From: Blain Hamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    There seems to be a lack of listed courses of action to take if 
and when the defendant fails to meet the criteria of the final 
judgement. I do not have any law training, and as such do not know 
if such a provision is possible. However, I write this with 
Microsoft's previous actions in mind.
    * This settlement is because Microsoft broke a previous 
antitrust agreement.
    * During the 5 years of this battle, MS has continued with its 
practices.
    * In the court, Microsoft was caught committing perjury a full 
three times.
    * Microsoft has been lobbying to lower the DOJ's funding in 
order to reduce its effectiveness.
    * Microsoft delayed, agreeing to a settlement only when a full 
ultimatum was issued and failure was outlined.
    Microsoft has continued to do acts which can be construed as 
attempts to monopolize a high-competition market, such as Windows 
XP's built-in advertising of MSN (In order to take over the ISP 
market) and Windows Media Player disabling high-quality playback of 
MP3s, for no other reason than to push Microsoft's own sound file 
standard. And I fear Microsoft will not comply to the agreement 
unless a sword of Damocles is fully hanging overhead. They have the 
funds and the lawyers to continue to break agreements, delaying in 
court the actions to be taken as punishment, and finally sign a new 
agreement where the cycle continues.
    I feel there needs to be a provision that spells out the 
possible punative actions that the TC can and will do if Microsoft 
refuses to comply, including drastic measures such as the proposed 
alternatives, even such things as restricting Microsoft's assets, or 
confiscating payments to Microsoft, in the same way the IRS is 
entitled to garnish wages of those who fail to pay taxes.
    It appears that also missing in this agreement is any form of 
public interaction over the long term. I do not see any course a 
citizen of the United States, can 1) alert the TC of practices that 
I feel should be looked at as possible violations, and 2) obtain 
reports, records, or any other documents the TC creates in order to 
aid making an informed opinion and alerting others to possible 
concerns.
    This information is of public interest, and it is mentioned, 
``Plaintiffs may use information obtained from the TC as the basis 
for commencing a compliance inquiry or investigation,'' (Competitive 
impact statement, IV B 2 b) I feel that future plaintiffs wanting to 
commence an inquiry should also be given access to this information. 
In short, as much nonsensitive documents as possible should be 
public information, under the rules of the Freedom of Information 
Act.
    It is because of these reasons that I would like to see 
amendments added that grant the TC powers of enforcement as well as 
to give the general public an ability to aid in ensuring that 
Microsoft does not break its settlements again.
    Thank you.



MTC-00009443

From: Robert S. Kirkwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:33pm
Subject: Stop the Prosecution of a legitimate, competitive business.
    Stop the Prosecution of a legitimate, competitive business.
    Robert S. Kirkwood
    PO Box 2078
    LaBelle, FL 33975
    [email protected]



MTC-00009444

From: Keith Fouts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:37pm
Subject: Let's end the Microsoft lawsuit.
    Please end the suit on Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Keith A. Fouts
    108 N Parkview
    Coffeyville, KS 67337-1237
    [email protected]



MTC-00009445

From: barneydoogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft fiasco
    Let's end the nonsense and put this sad chapter of anti-business 
crusading behind us. In these trying times, my government resources 
can be better utilized combating the terrorism and fanaticism that 
threatens my children and the generations that follow us.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas J. Fay
    9 Greenhurst Road
    West Hartford, CT 06107



MTC-00009446

From: John Tegen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I started a company to provide applications for Be Inc. 
operating system-- the BeOS. The company is OmicronSoft 
(www.omicronsoft.com). I started it in 1996 so that I could provide 
better quality applications found on other Operating System, 
including Windows and Apple. Due to the unlawful practices of 
Microsoft, they were successfully able to prevent Be Inc. to enter 
the market place by restricting OEM vendors like Hitachi, Dell, and 
Compaq to provide alternative operating systems to the consumer. 
This crushed Be Inc. as well as software providers like ourselves. 
Microsoft's actions prevented us to earn a living and prevented the 
consumer to choose an alternative and better solution for their 
computing needs.
    It is our opinion that the current settlement with the DOJ is 
far too weak to be harmful to Microsoft. If similar actions were 
enforced during anti-trust litigation earlier last century, we would 
have one oil company, one railroad company, and one telephone 
company. In some regards, it has allowed them to unfairly to 
penetrate markets that they have been trying to enter (e.g. 
Education). The longer Microsoft is allowed to continue in their 
normal fashion, the longer they have to make billions of dollars, 
eliminate competition, and provide the US consumer and Government 
poor quality products. As the DOJ is fully aware of, anti-trust 
behavior is economically and physically harmful to the general 
consumer and business community.
    We are looking for the DOJ to enforce the anti-trust to include:
    1) Full application document format disclosure and POSIX sample 
to read and write to and from those documents. This include Word, 
Excel, Power Point, Visio, Outlook/Exchange email, Outlook/Exchange 
contacts, Outlook/Exchange events, and MS proprietary audio and 
video formats.
    2) Full disclosure of Win32 API calls. Those not officially 
supported should be noted as such.
    3) To allow OEM manufacturers the full ability to provide 
alternative OS's to the consumer in both single and dual boot 
configurations. To prevent them to hide alternative operating 
systems.
    4) To natively support open multi-media formats including MP3. 
It is uncertain that these remedies will counter-act the damage that 
has already occurred to software manufactures like Be and ourselves. 
Even if the BeOS had 1% of the consumer market, it would have been a 
multi-million dollar business to ourselves. If we had a few million 
dollars, we would probably take legal action against MS for punitive 
damages. I would suggest that Microsoft should pay damages to 
companies like ourselves and pay a company to license the BeOS from 
Palm, plus $500M to allow the BeOS be offered to the consumer 
public.
    Please contact me with any questions you may have regarding 
this.
    Regards,
    John Tegen
    OmicronSoft
    President
    (858) 695-0088



MTC-00009447

From: Robert L. Duerler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    We support the 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.
    Yours truly,
    Robert L. Duerler
    Cathy C. Duerler
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00009448

From: Wade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:43pm
Subject: MicroSoft
    You know I hope that the federal government doesnt make it a 
policy to shut

[[Page 25155]]

down all successful businesses because the unsuccessful ones dont 
like it!
    Spare MicroSoft!
    Wade Bush, a user for 20 years,
    US Army Retired



MTC-00009449

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We can't afford to let this go on. Settle now it is important to 
the citizens of this country.
    Respectfully submitted:
    Cynthia Hoskins



MTC-00009450

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has provided a user friendly enviornment for computer 
users, I fail to understand why the government must intervene in any 
business that is successful. America was supposed to be a Republic, 
a free enterprise. However, with the Socialist attitude of many, 
those that do succeed are frowned upon. Microsoft should be allowed 
to carry on their business as a business without unnecessary 
government intervention. Microsoft has paid a price for the success 
they have. Let them continue. Others can have success but they do 
have to pay a price and a lot of work to get there. I feel Microsoft 
has paid their dues and should be allowed to continue. The states 
that want more should not be allowed to proceed with their 
arguments.



MTC-00009451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just settle the darn thing! Let's get on with life. How 
wonderful to think a company can be penalized for being successful!
    Diana Bress



MTC-00009452

From: F Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02  11:59pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft alone.
    Leave Microsoft alone and go after America's Biggest Criminals--
the Clintons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    fjl



MTC-00009453

From: Doris (038) John White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:01am
Subject: Anti-Trust Suit Against Microsoft
    We feel quite strongly about the government filing suit against 
Microsoft. We have always felt that the Clinton Administration 
envied Bill Gates for his financial standing.
    We would like to see this suit dropped. Micrsoft has been very 
good to its employees. It has also done a great deal of 
philanthropic work. Lets end this legal fiasco by dropping this suit 
and letting them get back to doing what they do so well. Let them 
help the economy by creating jobs.
    John and Doris White
    1195 Christopher Drive Apt. 1
    Neenah, WI 54956-6349



MTC-00009454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am not quite sure this e-mail will be heard, but I would just 
like to share my opinion on this matter.
    When did it become fashionable in this country to punish a 
company for being successful? When was Capitalism replaced with 
Socialism, where Big Government determines what's best for everyone? 
Microsoft, as a company, basically carried the world into the 
computer age. They used their expertise, innovative products, and 
relentless marketing to ``sell'' mankind to the fact that everyone 
needs a computer.
    So they benefited from this, is it a crime? Was Henry Ford 
persecuted for changing modern industrialism? No, but you didn't 
hear GM and Chrysler whine like small children that Ford was unfair. 
They just went out and did the best job they could, and caught up 
(and surpassed Ford in GM's case). Why is it that the brakes must be 
put on technology moving forward so a few misguided companies can 
catch up?
    In addition to this, as you destroy Microsoft's stock value, did 
anyone take into account how many ``normal'' people's 401K and 
retirement funds have stock in this? To save a few dollars in 
software costs, people's retirement savings are being decimated. 
Somehow, I cannot believe this is a better solution. I would 
certainly hope that everyone would come to their senses and follow 
the Federal government's lead to just settle this case and move on 
to the business of getting our economy in gear.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Buffamonte



MTC-00009455

From: Chaim Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:25am
Subject: microsoft
    Its time to settle--the faster you reach a deal and let 
microsoft get back to doing what it does best making software. this 
country needs is dynamic corporations especially in the high tech 
field to focus on innovation and not law suits.
    thank you,
    Chaim Klein
    President & CEO
    IglooSunset, L.L.C.
    http://www.igloosunset.com



MTC-00009456

From: Dick Haring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:37am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suit
    This ridiculous suit should be dropped immediately. Thanks to 
stupid government bureaucrats, the economy took a major hit when 
this bogus suit was brought. It impacted the stock market, 
significantly, and started the tremendous decline that we are just 
now turning around. This is government at it's worst, unproductive 
trouble makers doing nothing but getting in the way of productive 
job providing Americans. As might be expected it was formulated and 
pushed along by a leftist administration headed by people who really 
don't like capitalism very much.
    It should be sent back to where it belongs, limbo.
    RW Haring



MTC-00009457

From: James THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft case
    Throw the book at Bill Gates. He has destroyed one little 
computer company after another. He and Microsoft need to be punished 
in the worst way possible. Breaking Microsoft up into two companies 
is not enough. Make Microsoft pay and pay dearly. Even if it means a 
complete shake up or near confusion in the computer industry.



MTC-00009459

From: William A Guy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:44am
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft has 
crippled the
    Microsoft is a monopoly. As a monopoly, Microsoft has crippled 
the computer industry as a whole by styfilling inovation and 
compitition in that industry. Microsoft needs to be broken into 
three companies, one, operating system, two, programs and three, 
internet. As a microsoft customer, if I had a real choise, I would 
never use a Microsoft product again. If you investigate the new 
features of the new Microsoft XP operating system, this software is 
a violation of fair business practices and should not be allowed to 
be marketed. This is Microsoft's way of tumbing its nose at the 
judical system.
    Rod Guy



MTC-00009460

From: Curtis Porter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:45am
Subject: Anti-trust abuse against Microsoft.
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end the Clinton era's persecution of Microsoft. This 
company has blessed and benefited all of us who use computers. They 
should be able to enjoy their success and rewards for doing so. 
Other companies want to take advantage of Microsoft's success, and 
not have to develop their own. Do not allow this.
    Thank you.
    Curtis T. Porter
    Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area 816-525-5277



MTC-00009461

From: Tom and Nancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:10am
Subject: STOP THE MADNESS!
    Stop wasting taxpayer money on the Microsoft Case!



MTC-00009462

From: John Bronger
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25156]]

Date: 1/8/02  1:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The anti-business climate of the U.S. Goveernment, Department of 
Justice, is misguided effort and uses Public funding. In my opinion 
the government should spend more time working toward borders, 
language and cultural matters-enforcing the constitution and using 
English as a standard language as is used for aircraft control. 
Microsoft is an enabler not an impediment to furthering U.S.A. 
D.O.J. should be focused on threats to people instead of focusing on 
the people and firms competing. Eliminate the anti-business approach 
in the D.O.J.



MTC-00009463

From: atkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing in regards to an article involving the US v. 
Microsoft Corporation anti-trust case, posted at  http://
www.beunited.org >. The article pertains to the fateful demise of 
Be, Incorporated--a California-based software company that began 
developing the Be Operating System (BeOS)--and calls me to join a 
world-wide network of my fellow BeOS companions in making a request 
of the Department of Justice.
    It is very unfortunate that Be, Inc. was unable to obtain the 
success projected several years ago by myself and many of my 
computer-savvy colleagues, as well as several well-known critics and 
analysts of the computer sector. As a user of BeOS, I was able to 
experience first-hand the numerous superior features of the 
operating system over any of Microsoft's Windows family of operating 
systems.
    BeOS breathed much more life into my computer than Windows NT or 
2000 ever did--it was much faster, more stable, more reliable, and 
just as user-friendly. After becoming familiar with lightening-fast 
application launches and superior access to files in BeOS, I was 
disappointed when I was forced to boot into Windows 2000 to 
correctly view a webpage in Internet Explorer or open an email 
attachment with Microsoft Word.
    The fact of the matter is that BeOS was predicted to be a major 
success and somewhat a competitor to Microsoft Windows. It was 
believed that the operating system would weave itself into the 
mainstream of the computer market--machines would dual-boot a 
Microsoft OS and BeOS and the user, depending on his or her needs, 
would choose which one to boot from a start-up menu. But Microsoft 
managed to keep that situation from ever happening by using their 
strong-arm tactics against OEMs that attempted this, as is defined 
in Section III paragraph 49 of the Findings of Fact--United States 
of America v. Microsoft Corporation, ``when these dual-loaded PC 
systems are turned on, Windows automatically boots; the user must 
then take affirmative steps to invoke the BeOS.''
    To cut to the chase of the matter, Microsoft used its monopoly 
power to crush Be, Incorporated and halt the development of BeOS. 
For this, Microsoft should be punished and stripped of its monopoly 
powers. As is the case in BeOS, Linux, and many other operating 
systems, services are extended to the user that allow for better 
application programming, better access to operating system 
functions, and more cross-platform ``open'' standards. In BeOS and 
Linux, I can access the files on my Windows hard-drive partitions; 
in Windows, when I attempt to access a non-Windows partition, it 
prompts me to totally wipe the disk so that Windows can recognize 
the file system. Microsoft uses its monopoly extensively, and 
therefore it should be forced to adopt more open, universal, cross-
platform and operating system independent standards. It should also 
be punished, as is seen fit, by a stern and unforgiving judge.
    I fully trust that you, representing the Department of Justice, 
will use all of the resources at your disposal to make correct the 
situation that Microsoft has created using its anti-competitive and 
monopolistic grip over the computer industry.
    Most sincerely,
    William Dee Atkins
    [email protected]



MTC-00009464

From: Nelsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:43am
Subject: It will be very good for the US economy if this case was 
settled
    It will be very good for the US economy if this case was settled 
prior to the March hearings. The nine states that are holding out 
are obviously trying to protect their companies in their own state. 
e.g. Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems etc. They are putting themselves 
above the consumer by delaying the settlement. All they want is 
their pound of flesh, nothing more. It is getting so obvious that 
hopefully the judge will see through it. It was a good thing the DOJ 
made the effort to settle with Microsoft. The sooner it is over, the 
better it will be for the stock market and the consuming public.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Charles D Nelson
    [email protected]



MTC-00009465

From: Richard Isley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:44am
Subject: Microsoft
    So Microsoft did it bigger & BETTER than the other guys and made 
it to the top of the mountain. That's the American Way folks. Let's 
stop beating up our winners and start rewarding them instead. It's 
time to lay off Microsoft folks and get on with some important 
things.



MTC-00009466

From: larry hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  l:52am
    As a Microsoft software consumer and stockholder, I feel that 
the settlement is fair. To be honest, I have not followed every 
aspect of the case and must rely on the wisdom of our judicial 
system. I feel that a company should not have to spend as much time 
and money to fight court cases as Microsoft. American businesses and 
consumers appear to be jealous of business success. Microsoft was 
always the best game in town in my opinion, because its products fit 
together and are easy to use.
    Connectivity and easy-of-use appeals to me as a consumer.



MTC-00009467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:55am
Subject: Think
    Dear Justice Department,
    Pls forget about Microsoft case. They have done something for 
this country that could not be forgotten in the history of this 
entire world. They have brought enough money to feed millions of 
Americans. I believe that's enough. In any free world people just 
want to sue people for fun or nothing or to satisfy themselves by 
taking the shadow of the law. Just kick these people out so 
Microsoft can do some other job and shake the World. Please.
    Thanks
    David John



MTC-00009468

From: Felipe Contreras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:57am
Subject: My opinion
    I'm not a technology profesional, nor an important member of any 
relevant organization, I'm just a young Linux user from Mexico. 
Anyway, I heard that even my opinion could be important for this 
matters so here it is.
    I started with computers about 10 years ago, I in that moment 
there was no option for an OS, only Microsoft's DOS, or Windows 3.1. 
I was influened by videogames and I was very entusiast about doing 
the mine one, unfortunatedly the best development tool I had was 
Microsoft's QBasic, and I had not any help to develop a game.
    As the time went on I learned more and more, until one day I 
finally tryied the new operating system for experienced computer 
users, Linux. Since then I learned a lot of the UNIX systems, and 
the OpenSource movement. This was a complete new world for me, and 
withouth knowing it endless posibilites for development were at my 
hands. I became aware that best of the best in the computer world 
was in the linux world, and the best, they were working by will in 
doing this world better, working for giving people like me the 
posibilities for developing whatever they want.
    In my humble opinion comercial companies are just that, as the 
name says they exist to make money. Also, as far as I know it's much 
easier to make money doing bad things, inversely proportional. 
Microsoft, being a company with so much money, I can't think that 
their main concern is anything else than money, and that they 
gathered so much that they must have been some things not very good, 
at least not ethical.
    When I became concerned of such thigs, I saw the workings of the 
world different. If one gets involucred with the Linux world it

[[Page 25157]]

becomes obvious that Microsoft is evil, and Linux is good. Nobody is 
perfect, but the intentions of the OpenSource movement are good, 
while the ones of the Microsoft Corporation, are bad, making money. 
The OpenSource movement consists of scatered efforts withouth one 
main organization, at the contrary of Microsoft which is very 
organized and doesn't live any matter untouched, even with the great 
power they have, Linux, a hobbie work of some people done at their 
free time, is getting each time bigger ``market''. Obviously this 
means competence to Microsoft and it will not stand with arms 
crossed, if the resoultion of the DOJ let's them, they'll try to 
make clear to everyone that Microsoft is better (win over Linux), 
and their strategies obviously work.
    Althought I think that everyone with enought intelect to analize 
the implications of OpenSource, or at least with tasting the power 
of it will never return to the propertary and closed environment of 
the Microsoft's realm, if Microsoft win, some people (like me) might 
never try Linux.
    Felipe Contreras



MTC-00009469

From: gleeam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:16am
Subject: Microsoft
    It's time to stop this unwarranted assault on American 
businesses.
    Stop the Microsoft war started by that criminal Clinton.
    Why is the government punishing achievement, instead of 
rewarding it?
    Gary & Mary Martin
    4148 Meade Lake Road
    Millington. TN 38053



MTC-00009470

From: John Shea
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:50am
Subject: Clinton's Anti-trust Abuses
    Please end this crapola now, today! Microsoft has been kind to 
individuals and businesses and does not deserve the beating it 
continues to receive from the Justice Department and individual 
states. Microsoft has done a lot of good for America and the world. 
Bill Gates is a champion and should be treated as such..
    Thanks for listening.
    John Shea
    1673 Springbrook Road
    Lafayette, CA 94549



MTC-00009471

From: Sandra Dillard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:13am
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    Please bring sanity back to government and stop the Clinton-Reno 
antitrust suit. I don't believe there was any real basis for the 
suit. It was all politics to attack big business. I even suspect it 
was because Bill Gates wouldn't be black mailed into a large 
contribution to the Democratic party. This is very important to our 
economic recovery and the stock markets recovery too. Thank you for 
listening and good luck on cleaning out the Clinton messes.
    Mrs. Sandra A. Dillard
    P. O. Box 39
    N. Bonneville, WA 98639
    [email protected]



MTC-00009472

From: Jinny Dorner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:24am
Subject: Lawsuits
    Please get off the back of Bill Gates and Microsoft. When did it 
become a crime to be successful in this country? Any of us can 
compete if we want to and have a better product.
    regards,
    Jinny Dorner



MTC-00009473

From: David Brosnan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  4:02am
Subject: Right or wrong?
    To whom it concerns,
    It is well documented that Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen ``stole'' the 
ideas that gave them the foundation to build their fortune on. Now 
they have the money and the power to buy up anything that looks like 
potential competition, re-jig it to their ethos and call it a 
Microsoft product. Their list of failures after they took over good 
potential products makes for quiet interesting reading, if you take 
the time, and their answer is to bring out the ``latest'' version 
(i.e. patch up the mistakes and see does it work). There is no come 
back for ``down time'' for users. If it was any other industry, you 
could sue their butt off to recover lost time and profits, but 
because they monopolise the market, there is no alternative worth 
having. They give the consumer the ``middle finger'' and know that 
they can do so without worrying about repercussions. Mr. Gates now 
gives a lot of money to good causes and that is commendable. But Mr. 
Gates only did it when he had more money than he or his heirs could 
ever spend, and it would seem, when the writing was on the wall that 
the industry was getting fed up with being told what the future 
would be according to Microsoft, that becoming a great philantophist 
would fool the public into believing that a nice man like him could 
not possibly be an ogre. Competition begets corruption and in this 
case megomania, but it also fosters new ideas and inovation. Mr. 
Gates by his actions would like to control the market and dictate 
what we will have in ``the future according to Gates''. God better 
look out if Mr. Gates ever ``gets religion''. You as a nation do not 
put your fate in the hands of your President alone, you have your 
fail safe procedures. Please do not allow this man to be above all 
others. He does not need the money anymore so why should he object 
to his company being divided up into smaller parts and creating 
healthy competition, unless it is his ego he sees as being tampered 
with. You are our fail safe net, don't be deterred it what you 
believe is the right thing to do.
    Rgds
    http://www.dbcomp.ie/> anim.gif (59787 bytes) http://
www.dbcomp.ie/>
    David Brosnan * Managing Director * DB Computer Solutions
    Limerick Business Complex * Raheen Business Park* Limerick--
Ireland
    Phone: +353-61-480-980 Fax: +353-61-225-131
    mailto:[email protected]> David [email protected] *
    http://www.dbcomp.ie/> http://www.dbcomp.ie/



MTC-00009474

From: Kathy West Woodward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:18am
    I wish to thank you for your continuing pursuit of a fair 
settlement for the people and corporations of this country that 
have, for years, been covertly violated by Bill Gates and Microsoft. 
His mafia-like tactics, and proclaiming of innocence, as well as his 
propensity for getting away with most of it, are legendary within 
the computer industry and obvious to the educated consumer.
    Both Mr. Gates and our previous President have had the 
opportunity to lie, cheat and spiritually mess with this country... 
maybe there ought to be a ``reality show'' competition between them 
to see which one more deserves the ``Slick Willie'' moniker. :)
    Please dont let Microsoft continue their illegal and 
uncapitalistic practices. Fair competition, without fear of 
reprisals or blackmail, is what our phenomenal capitalistic system 
should be based on. Those who don't respect that premise, regardless 
of how many pockets they line, should be held strongly and surely 
accountable for thier actions.
    Kathy Woodward
    [email protected]



MTC-00009475

From: olivier serrano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    sir,
    the beos operating system was a serious alternative to 
microsoft. in my opinion, it could be even better. I think the 
position that has been brought to beos was due to microsoft's 
monopol. i would like the beos project to come back on worldwide 
network place of operating systems to bring people possibility to 
choose between several products. and different ways to use 
computers.
    sincerly
    olivier serrano



MTC-00009477

From: Biggy Boy Toddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is clearly a monopoly, and clearly at fault if not 
directly then indirectly (thru its intimidation) for BeOS and the 
BeIA failure in the marketplace. I'm for a decision to make 
Microsoft pay a penalty, not with software or with hardware (used 
and worthless) but with hard cash, cash as in American dollars. A 
fund should be set up for the billions it should pay, and that fund 
should immediately be used to educate the public that users of 
computer hardware have alternatives. Education to the users is 
important, and then the funds be distributed

[[Page 25158]]

to the schools in question who have been educated they have an 
alternative to choose. Bottomline is this, Microsoft is a monopoly, 
and it has clearly abused its monopolistic position in the past 10+ 
years to make substandard software, which has caused billions in 
damages and made more than enough folks that know better about 
technology pull their hair out knowing such technology is being lost 
forever and not marketed because folks are flat out afraid of the 
Microsoft you folks seem to love (by giving them a settlement that 
is beyond comprehension, you folks at the DOJ should either be 
fired, or slapped around with a wet trout).
    Best wishes



MTC-00009478

From: Don Bowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:24am
Subject: Give it a break
    Out here in the real world the public considers the entire 
government case against Microsoft to be a sham.
    It's time to stop. Go find some real criminals and stop wasting 
my money.
    Don
    Donald E Bowler
    1090 Forbes Street
    Fredericksburg, Va. 22405
    [email protected]



MTC-00009479

From: Rick Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Justice Department
    Stop the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    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.
    Rick Friedman
    104 Charlemagne Circle
    Harvest, AL 35749



MTC-00009480

From: Tony Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:44am
Subject: Comment
    Good morning
    I am chief geek of my enterprise. As system administrator I have 
considerable freedom to do what I wish but the requirement to relate 
to Microsoft using clients, who produce for example .doc files, 
means that we have to own use Microsoft products. I have asked for 
information about file structures but am told it is proprietary 
information.
    For some of my clients, we go to considerable lengths to allow 
them to reproduce material in non Microsoft format. Why? The 
suggestion is that Microsoft will move to annual licensing. Should 
they do that and, for whatever reason, my client choose not to 
continue to purchase these licences all their intellectual property 
held in Microsoft proprietary file formats will become inaccessible 
to them. Please require Microsoft to release the structure of their 
data forms so that users of other software may import their files.
    Please insist that Microsoft take no action which will deny any 
user of their software continuing free access to that user's 
intellectual property.
    Tony Davis
    DAVIS INTERNET CONSULTING



MTC-00009481

From: Sam Sheterom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is time for the Justice Department to end this witch hunt 
against Microsoft. Free Enterprise works if the government will let 
it. Former president Clinton was against Free Enterprise and 
therefore sent his lap dog Janet Reno to attack Microsoft. Why? 
Because they were successful? Because they were innovative? No 
because they were the number one in software. The competitors whined 
and cried to Clinton and he said ``Oh, how awful, you're not the 
best so I'll attack the best and break them up. that way the not so 
goods can be bigger.'' (Not an exact quote).
    It's time to stop! To put everything to bed and leave well 
enough alone. Let free enterprise work the way it's supposed to. The 
cream always floats to the top.
    Respectfully
    Samuel G. Sheterom, Jr.



MTC-00009482

From: Velma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    I believe the government should keep it's hands out of the 
Microsoft situation. If other companies don't like the way Microsoft 
is selling so well in the market place, they should invent another 
system that is better. . . isn't that the American way??? The 
government should drop any and all lawsuits against Microsoft.
    Velma A. Moore



MTC-00009483

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    You need to get off the back of Microsoft. Microsoft has 
provided us with standardization which has increased the 
productivity in application writing, as well as, the use off OS and 
office components. Every corp., including the government has 
benefited.
    Besides, I observe prejudice. Why are you not equally concerned 
about the harmful internet, media monopoloies ie. AOL and COMSAT? In 
my opinion, they exist only to be damaging.



MTC-00009484

From: Alex Burkhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Alex H. Burkhart
    6607 Northshore Dr.
    Knoxville, TN 37919
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The intention of this letter is for me to go on record as being 
a supporter of the settlement that brought an end to the antitrust 
lawsuit between the Department of Justice and the Microsoft 
Corporation. The lawsuit dragged on for three years, and now that it 
is over, the economy has a chance to get back to where it used to 
be.
    The economic downturn actually started when the suit against 
Microsoft was announced, and now the United States is in a 
recession. I cannot understand how the government missed the fact 
that the suit against Microsoft was actually detrimental to the 
economy. However, all of that is behind us now, and we must focus on 
getting back to where we used to be. The settlement is good for 
competition and the economy, and we must push forward.
    Thank you for your time, and again, I am going on record as 
supporting the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Burkhart



MTC-00009485

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get on with the real world and finish this waste of 
taxpayers--mine--dollars.
    Complete this phony anti trust farse.
    Milo valencic



MTC-00009486

From: joel lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a taxpayer and a citizen of this great nation, I urge you to 
agree to the settlement with Microsoft and end this abuse of the 
Anti-Trust Act by the Justice Department.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Lewis

[[Page 25159]]



MTC-00009487

From: Ingo Stainer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice
    Let me just mention a statement from the settlement itself: 
``Following a 7-day trial in late 1998 and early 1999, the United 
States District Court found that Microsoft had violated both 
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. On appeal, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously affirmed 
portions of the district court's finding and conclusion that 
Microsoft illegally maintained its operating system monopoly in 
violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, but reversed and remanded 
other portions of the district court's determinations. Specifically, 
the court of appeals reversed the district court's determination 
that Microsoft violated section 2 by illegally attempting to 
monopolize the Internet browser market and remanded the district 
court's determination that Microsoft violated section 1 of the 
Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating 
system.''
    That means Microsoft found guilty in illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. With the settlement agreement Microsoft would be allowed 
to further on maintain this monopoly.
    That would bind the whole Operating System and Internet 
development to Microsoft.
    And that would result into the well known development speed of 
selling a release, releasing some bug fixes, selling a new version 
(with some new features and even more bugs), releasing bug fixes 
again and then starting all over again.
    Microsoft is not interested in putting more effort to improve 
its product but in selling more software at high prices with low 
reliability. And the reason why they can do that is that they have 
the OS monopoly. Probably you are wondering why I say so and still 
use Microsoft. The reason is that our company sells solutions of 
third party software developers who only provide support for 
Microsoft Operating Systems due to the monopoly they have.
    I am trying to avoid Microsoft Software in many cases because of 
its low reliability and incalculability. Being a System 
Administrator for Windows and Unix I know what I am talking about.
    Agreeing to this settlement would be a big win for Microsoft and 
its lawyers but would mean great loss for all Computer users. This 
is my personal statement and does in no way reflect any company 
opinion.
    Best regards
    Ingo Stainer
    Jambou
    (+49 (89) 410 738--82, mobile: ++49 (0) 179 510 38 99 
mailto:[email protected] Visit our WebSite: http://
www.jambou.com



MTC-00009488

From: The Dour Celt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Case
    Let's drop the charade perpetuated by Bill Clinton and Janet 
Reno that successful businesses must be engaging in unfair business 
practices. Microsoft has no more a monopoly in software than IBM had 
in desktop computers. When someone comes along with something 
better, the consumer will buy it.
    Arthur McGinley
    [email protected]



MTC-00009489

From: Barbara Tomek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:34am
Subject: Microsoft
    I think it is time to end the abuses of the Clinton 
administration and time to quit wasting the taxpayers money on 
Microsoft. It does not make sense to punish a company for being good 
and being able to capture most of the market.
    Thank you, Barbara Tomek



MTC-00009490

From: Duane Erlandson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:57am
Subject: Settlement
    I support the Microsoft settlement that has been proposed--
please do not waste any more time and money going after a company 
that is not causing harm.
    Thank you.



MTC-00009491

From: adinardi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:04am
Subject: please wake up
    Get off the stick and let the company that had more to do with 
advancing technology do business their own way. If you had some 
sense you would tell would be entrepreneurs to follow Microsoft's 
lead. Truly this is what America can offer you if you develop a 
product so good that people DO NOT want anything less. Yet you 
stifle the best to prove some juvenile point.
    A DiNardi
    East Haddam CT



MTC-00009492

From: Hasenbein George-G14197
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the Clinton-era misuse of the Anti-Trust laws. Let 
real competition settle the issue.
    Sincerely,
    George H. Hasenbein



MTC-00009493

From: Eric Kassan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it may concern,
    I believe the proposed federal settlement is excessive and I am 
more than appalled that my state, California, claims more damages 
are in order. My state's attorney general and the Department of 
Justice to a lesser extent are NOT acting on my behalf or in my best 
interest or the interest of the citizens of the United States by 
attacking the company most responsible for the solid economy of the 
1990s. It is not a coincidence that the economic downturn and the 
initial judgment occurred near the same time.
    Thank you.
    Eric Kassan
    Woodland Hills, CA



MTC-00009494

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:28am
Subject: trial
    BILL GATES SHOULD BE GIVEN A TRIAL DELAY!



MTC-00009495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer of computer hardware and software products, both 
as aretail home user, and as owner and operator of an $18,000,000 
per year information technology services consulting company. My 
viewpoint encompasses both personal and business aspects, and it is 
that my government should settle this lawsuit immediately, without 
further harassment of Microsoft, on these grounds.
    1. I remember when there was no real market leader in this area 
and there was rampant, costly, unproductive competition. Companies 
and consumers wasted much money on products that were incompatible, 
inefficient, poorly produced and all too often short lived. 
Microsoft's technical and market leadership has produced an orderly 
market, where users of this technology can invest with the certainty 
that the product and vendor will be there tomorrow, and that this 
investment will not be wasted. Yet there is still room for true 
invention, as new products are still produced, even today. LINUX 
software is an example.
    2. This entire litigation has roots in the political process. In 
the pre-'96 national election process, Bill Clinton went to Silicon 
Valley to raise funds for the his reelection and his Democratic 
party. The largest contributors were the Barksdales and Ellisons 
(Netscape and Oracle) of the technology world, the biggest 
complainers about and competitors to Microsoft. Lo and behold, 
shortly after he raised millions of dollars from them, the United 
States Department of Justice initiated this lawsuit.
    3. At a personal level, I see the United States government using 
my tax dollars to cripple one of the most successful companies, and 
entrepreneurs, of our modern times, for very dubious reasons and 
non-existant benefits to anyone but the trial lawyers and the 
Silicon Valley moguls. And as an entrepreneur in my own right, 
albeit a lesser scale than Bill Gates, I see my government's efforts 
here as a disgusting bullying by lawyers who produce nothing against 
people who actually produce goods, services and jobs for society.
    Kenneth Podd = [email protected]



MTC-00009496

From: John Paoloemilio
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25160]]

Date: 1/8/02  8:31am
    Subject: Please stop the govt. intrusion on microsoft and any 
Please stop the govt. intrusion on microsoft and any other co. in 
the US,,let the free market determine the outcome of microsoft.
    Thank you
    John Paoloemilio



MTC-00009497

From: FRANK MEGOW SR.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:33am
Subject: microsoft farce
    Get off microsoft's back the only reason this has gone this far 
is Bill Gates wouldn't lay down and play dead to the democrats 
demand for money.
    Sgt Frank J. Megow Sr. (retired USA)



MTC-00009498

From: Josephine Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:35am
Subject: Picking on Gates
    Why doesn't the justice department go after the big monopoly of 
our goverment instead of picking on Gates who has done more to keep 
our economy growing than any fat politician in Washington? Michael 
Gates has earned every cent that he has. I thought there was some-
thing called ``Free Enterprise'' in this country. I do not begrudge 
anyone the fruit of their own labor. The goverment should not be 
allowed to take anything from any individual (or his corporation) 
and distribute it to another. By squashing those we deem more 
successful than ourselves we stifle our own quest for excellence. 
Let's learn from Gates instead of destroying him.



MTC-00009499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen.
    I don't often write to voice my opinion, I guess that I'm just 
part of the so called ``silent majority.'' But in this case, I'm 
very happy to report that you, my government did the right thing by 
settling the Microsoft case. It's not often that I can say this with 
conviction. Now we can all go back to doing more important things, 
like finding Osoma Bin Laden and finding what really happened with 
the ``Rich'' payoff to President Clinton.
    Sincerely,
    M. V. Favetti
    6445 State Rd.
    Parma, OH 44134



MTC-00009500

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:48am
Subject: get it over with
    I am commenting on the Microsoft anti-trust case. Please accept 
the settlement on the table and end the witchhunt. I can't believe 
that in America if you build a better product and proceed to whip 
everybody's butt in the marketplace that you end up in court over 
it. What kind of message is this sending to would be entrepeneurs in 
the greatest country in the world? We are not (yet) a socialist 
country and freedom to make the best products and the most profits 
must be preserved. End it now. Thank you for accepting my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy J. Holtz
    Altoona, PA



MTC-00009501

From: Bruce H. Uhl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Justice Department
    I am writing to let you know that I support the Microsoft 
agreement.
    It is time to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse. The 
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    The Microsoft 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.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Uhl
    [email protected]



MTC-00009502

From: gary n. hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:50am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i support the microsoft settlement. it is time to let the 
companies and consumers decide on what is best by using the market 
place rather than the courtroom.
    gary n. hays



MTC-00009503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:51am
    It is time to end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse--I 
support the It is time to end the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse--
I support the Microsoft settlement. The trial squandered taxpayers' 
money, was a nuisance to consumers and a serious deterent to 
investors in the high-tech industry. It is time to end this trial 
and the wasteful spending accompanying it so the industry and the 
economy can get back on its feet again. A settlement will be good 
for consumers, the industry and the economy.
    Thank you.



MTC-00009504

From: DON CAMPBELL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:54am
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Can you imagine the price of computer software had Microsoft not 
had the innovative touch. Did they have a monopoly, probably yes, 
only after they provided the innovativeness to succeed in product 
development. They cannot be nearly as bad as big oil after all their 
mergers. U.S. broke this up once, do they have to again.
    Hit Microsoft with a reasonable penalty, get the states' dollar 
hungry lawyers of their backs and let them do business in a revised 
way.
    DON CAMPBELL



MTC-00009505

From: Schulze, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  9:02am
Subject: one company for OS-another for apps
    The answer is: the company that creates the operating system 
MUST be seperate from those that make the applications for it. 
Otherwise, the OS can keep changing/shifting on the competitors 
(making their apps not work as dependably) while catering/designing 
to the nuances and changes of their own applications.
    This has been happening for years and it's only getting worse. 
AND.......whatever you do, DON'T PUNISH?.. MS BY LETTING THEM FLOOD 
THE EDUCATION DEPT WITH THEIR OS AND APPS.....to put it politely, 
that is the complete opposite direction and effect.
    Thanks,
    Bob
    Bob Schulze
    Network CAD Specialist
    Elcom Services Group
    ph: 215-826-6134
    fx: 419-793-3814



MTC-00009506

From: Creedy, Rosemary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft judgment
    EXCELLENCE AND SECURITY
    Excellence and security are what is needed within the IT 
industry. Microsoft should be restricted because they are not the 
BEST in all areas. We need to allow free IT growth in a competitive 
market or we shall all be worse off. Example: There are useful 
little cars but it would not encourage excellence if they were 
automatically ``included'' with a road tax/licence for a vehicle. 
This would reduce the market share for specialist excellent cars at 
the top of the range.
    Please uphold the court judgment against Microsoft in a manner 
that will truly stop Microsoft products being forced onto consumers. 
``Punishing'' Microsoft by ``allowing'' them to donate hundreds of 
PCs to schools is hardly a way of reducing their encroachment. This 
method of fining Microsoft should not be allowed. Once their 
stranglehold is complete they will be free to increase licence fees 
every year and the world will be held to ransom.

[[Page 25161]]

    Microsoft has already invaded US government departments and is 
fast taking over all IT implementations in the UK government. A 
commercial corporation should not be placed in a position where it 
can make demands on the governments of countries. There should be a 
ruling that forces Microsoft to make available the basic code that 
would allow all docs produced in Microsoft to be used by other 
software packages. Also Microsoft should not be allowed to build in 
``planned obsolescence'' which forces users into an endless cycle of 
having to upgrade their software in order to be able to read email 
attachments from the latest Microsoft product.
    What would the motor industry be like if we were forced to 
upgrade all the electronic components in the car every year in order 
to be able to continue to use certain major highways?
    It could even be said the Microsoft does not sell the goods that 
it purports to sell as it does not notify the buyer that the full 
functionality of the product will begin to decrease after about 6 
months as it becomes less and less compatible with the newer 
releases of Microsoft software. If Microsoft did not hold this 
unacceptable monopoly it would be possible to send older second-hand 
PC's and software to third world countries for their use. This is 
not practical when the software becomes obsolete simply because it 
is no longer compatible with the latest Microsoft offering.
    Microsoft is so intent on increasing their market share that 
they are exposing us to enormous risks from hackers and viruses. 
Please free us form the tyranny of Microsoft and encourage them to 
use their considerable resources and expertise to pursue excellence 
and security. If they are as good as they think they are they should 
be able to cope with excellent competition and this should serve to 
spur them on to greater things. Microsoft were found GUILTY --- 
please allow the judgment to be EFFECTIVE in RESTRICTING their 
monopoly and unacceptable domination of the IT industry.
    Rosemary Creedy
    Website Administration Officer
    Education Department
    4th floor
    New Town Hall
    Wandsworth Borough Council
    Wandsworth High Street
    London
    SW18 2PU
    tel. 020 8871-8012
    [email protected]



MTC-00009507

From: Kumarjit Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir(s), it is great to know that the DoJ has agreed upon a 
settlement with Microsoft. I am not only a law student, but have 
been using Microsoft MSDOS since 1986 on an IBM 8088 PC. i know that 
all the products are not perfect but Microsoft does come up with 
excellent programs such as Word 97 and Win 95. it would indeed be an 
overkill to see the company broken up simply because their OS 
outsold those of others. My fullest support for Microsoft!!
    Kumarjit Ray
    Calcutta, India



MTC-00009508

From: DeLoy Denning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:06am
Subject: End Clinton Witch Hunt
    With all due respect, I would like to see the matter with 
Microsoft setteled without further court action.
    I am a microsoft customer and I find the cries of unfair are not 
justified. I do not use all of the products supplied with Microsoft 
and feel that choice to use or not use is up to me, not the courts. 
Other companies package other programs with their packages, do we go 
after them next.
    I am sure that I do not understand all the parts of this 
lawsuit, but I know that putting business down does not enhance our 
ecconomy.
    Sincerely,
    DeLoy Denning



MTC-00009509

From: Alan Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:59am
Subject: Give Microsoft hell
    I think the consumer will be better served if Microsoft is 
broken up and Bill Gates goes to jail. Filing an anti-trust law suit 
against Microsoft is probably the only good thing the Clinton 
administration did. Of course they fouled that up also. Bill Gates 
and Microsoft are the same kind of obstacle to progress and free 
enterprise that Bell telephone was. Maybe worse. Liberty and the 
consumer are not served when one person or company is able to thwart 
the development of new technologies that would be good for the 
consumer. Microsoft is a blatant obstacle to competition and free 
enterprise. On this issue I strongly disagree with USDOJ.
    AWJ
    Alan W. Jorgensen
    MHTN Architects, Inc.
    420 East South Temple, Suite 100
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
    Phone: (801) 595-6700 Fax: (801) 595-6717
    www.mhtn.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00009510

From: barbara hatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:08am
Subject: suit
    The next thing will be complete Socialism by liberals in that 
they will redistribute all the wealth in the country because ``it's 
not fair''. Well, life's not fair, so get a grip and get on with it. 
You either survive and thrive, or snooze and loose!!! Leave 
Microsoft alone! Common sense is not so common.
    Voltaire



MTC-00009511

From: Clifton Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement comments
    Sirs:
    Please review the findings of fact from this case and I believe 
therefor that the proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement as 
reported in the media is inadequate!
    Microsoft has clearly behaved in a anti-consume and predatory 
manner. Microsoft has inhibited innovative competition by 
intimidation and acquisition. Microsoft has a poor historical record 
on the use of personal information in violation of its own published 
privacy policies. Microsoft has, by its predatory practices, 
discouraged investment capital in tech industry.
    Microsoft has, by its restrictive oem licensing practices, has 
intimidated the oems from offering non-Microsoft products 
preinstalled on new computers. Microsoft has a clear history of co-
oping open standards into their proprietary standards. Such as 
instant messaging, JAVA, XML, etc. I am sure that there are many 
more examples, but as a layman and not a computer expert, these are 
the ones that I am aware of. Microsoft has decreased entrepreneurs 
in tech industry because of their ruthless suppression of competing 
technologies or businesses that they perceive as a threat.
    Microsoft has used subterfuge in the guise of technical hype 
instead of real unbiased technical merit to attack alternative 
products. Microsoft has so restricted access to their software 
details as to make it extremely difficult for non-Microsoft products 
to interact correctly with Microsoft products. As an example of 
this, they often change the file format of their programs so that 
third party products can not read data files of these newer 
versions, thus compelling consumers to buy more Microsoft's software 
instead of alternates.
    The Microsoft offer to supply products to schools further 
expands their monopoly in the marketplace. It would be more in the 
spirit of antitrust to give these schools the cash to spend on the 
products of their chose without the interference of Microsoft!
    Microsoft has not complied with the word and spirit of earlier 
settlements and this should therefor demand the most strict controls 
in this settlement to enforce compliance!
    Respectfully,
    Clifton Patrick
    Property & Casualty Insurance
    119 Brookside Ave.
    Route 17M
    Chester, NY 10918
    Voice and fax 845-469-7645



MTC-00009512

From: Billie Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft investigation
    It's time to end the Microsoft investigation. What a waste of 
taxpayers' money.
    Billie Burns
    Williams Brothers Construction Co., Inc.
    713-522-9821
    fax: 713-520-5247



MTC-00009513

From: Bailey S Kurtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:13am
Subject: Lawsuit

[[Page 25162]]

    Please end this insane lawsuit against Microsoft. Thank God the 
Clinton's years are over.
    Bailey Kurtz
    Lexington, KY



MTC-00009514

From: armen.meguerditchian@us. pwcglobal.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing in support of further resistance to the proposed 
national settlement. As part of an organization which implements 
large software packages to corporate desktops, I find we are often 
in the situation where Microsoft's divergent support of industry 
standards (or clear refusal, as in the case of Java) cause us to 
create functional work-arounds to be able to implement software to 
the clients.
    The impact of this is measured in soft dollars, as it entails 
hundreds of additional man hours to make these products work 
together. Armen Meguerditchian
    Principal Consultant
    Note that these are my own views and not necessarily 
representative of the entire firm.
    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or 
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the 
sender and delete the material from any computer.



MTC-00009516

From: Terry Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:21am
Subject: Time to Let it Go
    Give up on this. Time to let it go. Few have done as much for 
this country than has Bill Gates. Stop the pandering to those 
Clilnton era attorneys and dump it.
    Terry Price
    Reading, Pennsylvania



MTC-00009517

From: jdca@capital. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:21am
Subject: Feedback on Microsoft Anti-Trust Case 
[email protected]>
    To whom it may concern:
    First of all let me say I'm glad to see that the DOJ has backed 
off somewhat on the severity of the penalty phase of this ant-trut 
trial. However, there are many in the software industry that will 
complain and raise issues no matter what the outcome. In particular 
I am talking about the Sun's and Oracles of the world. They are, in 
my opinion, a bunch of whiners. Consumers have a choice in what OS 
and what apps they put on their desktop. It just so happens that Sun 
and Oracle are not preferred products for most home users and many 
businesses. The suite of applications for hte Windows environment is 
much, much larger than any of the other OS's because it's the most 
popular. There is a market in the Windows environment for software 
developers to create products. Microsoft should not be penalized for 
this. In addtion, as a software developer, Microsoft in no way 
controls the software development environment for Internet 
applications. In fact, they are a step behind the Sun's, Oracle's 
and Unix flavors of the world. One could just as easily build an 
enterprise on Solaris, Apache and Oracle DBMS applications as it 
could on Microsoft. A fact that MS realizes ala .NET.
    Now that the desktop OS is moving in the direction of just an 
Internet browser, the playing field is definitely level. If there is 
to be any punitive damages directed toward Microsoft the focus must 
be narrowed down to a clear anti-trust issue and not directed at the 
company as a whole by breaking it up. Breaking the company up is a 
gross exageration of the intent of the anti-trust laws. The anti-
trust laws are outdated when it comes to technology and technology 
companies. What could be considered a monopoly one day may not even 
exist the next. Just look at Xerox, Apple (as it related to the 
Apple II), Texas Instruments. All were leaders in their respective 
industries at one time but are now just minor players in the global 
industry.
    Thanks for taking this feedback.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Yates
    Albany, NY



MTC-00009518

From: Robert M. Taylor Sr MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    It appears to be in everyone's interest to settle the Microsoft 
law suit as quickly as possible. The proposed agreement seems 
equitable.



MTC-00009519

From: Andrew C. Bairnsfather
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:25am
Subject: Conflict of Interest
    Conflict of Interest
    I don't think you are stupid. On the contrary, but I am still 
going to try to step through this logically and hopefully not 
confusingly or insultingly, although I do take a cynical and 
plodding tone from time to time, please don't take it personally. 
Thanks. First, a short quote from Steve Ballmer.
    From http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/
0,4586,5100151,00.html?chkpt=zdnnpltp01>:
    ``We went and said, 'Hey, we have some ideas for an all-purpose 
box, kind of a PC, kind of a video game machine, kind of a set-top 
box.' You know what they said? They said, 'Get outta Dodge, we're 
not going to write software for that thing,''' Ballmer said. I 
believe I know one of the most significant reasons as to why they 
said that to Mr. Ballmer's face.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
    Microsoft already writes the operating system. AND they also 
have grown increasingly in control of many software application 
markets: word processors, spread sheets, presentation applications, 
databases, web browsers, and continue to threaten the availability, 
and usability of many ``3rd party'' software applications.
    Microsoft's control would be nearly total. Third party vendors 
can write software to Microsoft's X Box API and if they do a good 
job they can even re-sell some of the code they've written for their 
own games to other companies to use. This is nothing new I believe. 
But the problem is when Microsoft takes other people's code and 
includes it in their system. I don't remember how many years ago it 
was, but MS did incorporate software for disk compression in their 
operating system, disk compression software that wasn't theirs. They 
lost in court, had to pay damages I believe, and had to recall many 
copies of MS DOS 6 something--I think it was during that version of 
MS DOS.
    Apple also took them to court for stealing parts of QuickTime. 
Fortunately for Apple, unlike the disk compression incident, the 
pirated QuickTime code was only in beta copies of the Microsoft 
software; Microsoft was distributing it, but only to individuals/
organizations writing code (or otherwise joined to them as a 
developer) for Microsoft's operating systems.
    There are three main layers you can think of when dealing with a 
computer. Even four, but the fourth is created by you.
    1. Hardware. Akin to the engine, it's the physical part.
    2. Operating System. Provides basic (and advanced ;-) 
functionality to the applications (windows, menus, buttons, etc...), 
provides a means to control the hardware (volume, monitor 
brightness/contrast).
    3. Applications. You run these to create and manipulate data.
    4. Data you create and/or push around. Since Microsoft has so 
many operating systems it seems perfectly logical to divide them up 
in to two companies to divide their conflict of interest: a system 
software company, and an application vendor. They also have hardware 
offerings, but I know very little about it. So I don't know what to 
do with their hardware offerings at this point, to have them go to 
the OS company or the application company, or have them be their own 
company if they want. Oh, I left out the part where they also want 
to own the cable companies that install, and tend the wires to the 
house from the distribution points. Hmm...I think they already do 
own a number. And I also shouldn't leave out the part about how they 
own a broadcasting company it seems, MSNBC. Do I really think I'm 
going to see objective and continuously fair news items, TV shows, 
etc.., on a station that's owned by Microsoft? No. The content will 
be influenced. (On a side note I don't believe media outlets should 
be owned by product vendors.) So let's see, they already own a 
broadcasting company, they own some cable companies that bring it to 
your door, they attempted to make a box the cable will connect to, 
and they write the operating system for the box, and they also write 
games for the box.
    I think even their developers recognized a bad thing when they 
saw it. Here is the next paragraph of the article where Steve says 
the XBox is just the start. ``We came back a year later and we said 
OK, we're going to start by

[[Page 25163]]

doing the world's greatest video game machine, and they said OK, 
let's talk,'' Ballmer said.
    The last paragraph:
    ``We know we have to succeed, but there is a broader concept 
there that we will pursue at some point,'' Ballmer said. ``You can 
say, is it the end of the road or is there a bigger play? And the 
answer is yeah, there's a bigger play we hope to get over time.'' 
Proverbs 20:5, ``The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters 
........'' (Disclaimer: Am I saying Apple should be immune to being 
``broken up''? No, at some point it could become necessary to divide 
Apple along the aforementioned logical parts (hardware, operating 
system, applications) but Apple is hardly an economic threat to the 
same number of companies that Microsoft is now.
    I saw a commercial when I lived in Alabama. It was a commercial 
for Microsoft in general, not a product spot light, but just a 
``warm fuzzy'' commercial touting their good deeds in education and 
such. However they, didn't show many, if any at all, computers 
running any of their operating systems. They showed Apple hardware 
and the Macintosh operating system. The advertisement even focused 
in on children using the computer and interacting with a panoramic 
photograph of a scene, using QuickTime. They were already caught 
once stealing actual lines of code from QuickTime and here they are 
confusing the audience in to believing the panorama was being viewed 
on a Microsoft operating system. The irony is that you *can* view a 
QuickTime panorama on Microsoft operating systems, but that's thanks 
to Apple writing that software, not thanks to Microsoft as the 
advertisement incorrectly displays.)
    I believe my small business in Alabama where I tried to 
establish myself taking panoramic photographs was impacted 
negatively by Microsoft. Fortunately for me I now work for a company 
where I can take panoramic photographs. But I am upset at the 
thought of Microsoft using its monopoly in operating systems and 
applications to intimidate and influence hardware manufacturers to 
perpetuate Microsoft's operating system AND application monopolies. 
In other words Microsoft can influence hardware vendors not to 
include QuickTime on the hardware they ship. Apple is not going to 
go so low as to write software that intentionally crashes, slows 
down, or wreaks other havoc on the system (MS Word 6 ahem). I guess 
I'm tired of ranting now. But I still continue to be amazed at the 
number of people who don't see that there is a huge conflict of 
interest in the places Microsoft has extended its reaches, and their 
self-avowed eagerness to pursue it even more.



MTC-00009520

From: Kevin Ramos-Glew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft
    MICROSOFT is great
    Leave them alone! It's survival of the fittest.
    Bill Gates is helping to bring technology to inner-city 
classrooms.
    Find another cause.
    Kevin



MTC-00009521

From: Christian Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been unable to locate information regarding the actual 
penalties Microsoft is being levied. I have heard through the media, 
that Microsoft will ``pay'' a penalty by donating software and 
equipment to schools. Assuming this is the case, this would not 
actually penalize Microsoft, but would allow them to create a market 
for their products where one does not currently exist. This market 
has been one of Apple's few competitive arenas with Microsoft. When 
updates to ``donated'' products become available, Microsoft will 
easily recoup any expenses incurred. Since their initial donation 
cost will be significantly lower than the sale price of the 
products, their actual penalty would be lower, allowing them to move 
into a new market and make a profit in quick time, while appearing 
to be either coming clean or even generous.
    Again, assuming this is the case, I would encourage the DOJ to 
consider a penalty that would actually penalize the company. 
Microsoft could be required to provide equipment specified by the 
school, without regard to the manufacturer. Alternately, Microsoft 
could be required to provide free software and updates for all 
products to schools in perpetuity. I don't want to see the DOJ 
softening and letting Microsoft dictate the terms of their own 
penalty.
    I have been appalled at Microsoft's conduct, and I ask that they 
be held accountable.
    Sincerely,
    Christian Klein



MTC-00009522

From: Delores Stafford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft
    I respectfully ask that an end be put to the Clinton-era Anti-
trust law abuse on the Microsoft case.
    Delores S. Stafford



MTC-00009523

From: David Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs: I am in favor of approval of the Microsoft settlement.
    David Cooper
    Mullica Hill, NJ



MTC-00009524

From: Jeffrey Houchins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Greetings,
    While admittedly I am no great fan of Microsoft, I believe a 
free market economy depends on government staying out of the picture 
as much as possible. As a consumer I believe Microsoft has the right 
to bundle their products however they see fit. Let the market decide 
these matters. This situation reminds me a bit of Wal-Mart going 
into a rural community and putting all the Ma and Pa stores out of 
business. There are both good and bad effects to this, but a free 
market economy depends on freedom. Ultimately, me the consumer 
decides where to spend my money.
    Here is my tale of Microsoft bundling causing me to change from 
Netscape Navigator to Windows Internet Explorer (IE). My first 
computer had Navigator on it and I loved it and resisted switching 
to IE simply because I was used to Netscape and had no reason to 
change. That is until I bought a microsoft game that required 
Windows to be the default browser if I wanted to play the game over 
the internet.
    Although I went kicking and screaming, I had no choice but to 
switch over to Windows IE. Now that I am used to Windows IE I like 
it just fine. Netscape never made any games, or contributed in any 
other way to my internet usage. Microsoft has, and I believe that 
gives them the right to flex their free market muscles from time to 
time.
    Netscape is a fine product, but if they plan on competing with 
the big boys they will have to depend on innovation and imagination, 
rather than turning to sniveling and whining to big brother to fight 
their battles for them. Govenment interference should be kept to a 
minimum, not only in this matter, but in all matters. Freedom 
depends on it.
    Jeffrey J Houchins
    MPLS MN



MTC-00009525

From: Chris Reade
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov ','attorney.general(a)po...
Date: 1/8/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a partner in a technology consulting firm I work with the 
Microsoft products every day. And as a professional in the field I 
must urge you do more in this settlement. I beleive that Microsoft 
is a mean-spirited company whose only interest in the consumer's 
welfare is how much money can be extracted from them.
    Given that Microsoft made a mockery of their previous consent 
decree and is likely to do the same with any conduct remedy I would 
like to register my support for the following settlement: Force the 
company to reveal the entire source-code for every release of the 
operating system. This may sound like a weak penalty, but I think 
you would find that it is the harsest penalty short of breaking the 
company up.
    Although the company makes a great deal of money from Office and 
other products, Windows is the core that makes it all tick. It is my 
belief (and I am in no sense alone here) that Microsoft has code 
inside of Windows that favors the company's products and enables its 
programmers to leverage the system to the company's benefit. 
Further, I beleive that many other trust infractions would be 
uncovered if the operating system was released open-source. 
Additionally, it would truly make it possible for third parties to 
write future software on parity with the company's own software.

[[Page 25164]]

    Given that conduct remedies are not likely to succeed and that 
breakup is not on the table, I beleive that licensing the source 
code would have the greatest effect.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Reade
    Partner
    Carrollton Technology Parters
    New Orleans--New York--Washington DC
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
    office: 504-897-3429 cell: 504-616-5589
    www.ctpllc.com http://www.ctpllc.com/>



MTC-00009526

From: Frank Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:40am
Subject: J. RENO'S BLUNDER
    Let's stop using taxpayers money on stupid deals like this, get 
back within the constitution, and go after criminals, not businesses 
trying to make a living for its employees, and a profit for its 
shareholders. Drop this suit, and get on with good gov't business.
    signed by antique frank--they don't make them this good anymore!



MTC-00009527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe Microsoft has significantly hurt consumers and 
support the settlement that the DOJ has reached to resolve the 
litigation.
    Sincerely
    Eric Alsberg
    1430 Voltz Road
    Northbrook, Illinois



MTC-00009528

From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is time to end the tyranny of the Clinton years! Get out of 
the life of American business and taxpayers!! Why are you not 
prosecuting true criminals like the Clintons and their accomplices 
during their eight year crimes spree?
    Jane Pehl
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00009529

From: Glenda Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support an end to the Microsoft Settlement.It is (in my 
opinion) an extreme waste of our tax dollars. I firmly believe that 
there is enough competition in the marketplace . People use 
Microsoft because it is their choice.
    Thank you,
    Glenda Bowen
    198 Fanning Bridge Road
    Fletcher, NC 28732
    [email protected]



MTC-00009530

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:43am
    I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse



MTC-00009531

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:46am
Subject: anti-trust
    Gentelmen, Good morning from Dayton Ohio. I am writing with 
regard to Bill Clintons anti trust laws he so valiantly defended on 
good conservitive busniness like Bill Gate at Micro soft. The 
Liberal Democrates seem to dislike any one or any corporate 
successes they dont like any one or any bussinesses being successful 
and getting ahead In life unless Its them. Leave the good companies 
alone let them function under the free enterprize of our great 
country, dont let the sociolist Democrates keep ruining our lives. 
Thank you for you time. Merrill Clay a concerned American afraid of 
what Liberal Democrates are doing. Only you people can stop them



MTC-00009532

From: Joan Dambra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:46am
Subject: MICROSOFT
    DEAR GOVERNMENT.
    PLEASE*********Just leave this wondeful company ALONE.
    JOAN DAMBRA....



MTC-00009533

From: Michael Frawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please know that I am very dissapointed with the settlement the 
US Government has reached with Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned, 
the corporate structure (Bundled OS & Applications) that allowed 
Microsoft to stifle and eliminate competition is still in place. 
Where is Netscape these days anyway? Do you see anyone using that 
browser anymore? Their attorneys must be laughing a slapping backs 
over this one. If you had any MBA compare the remedies that are to 
be imposed versus continued monopolistic behavior, I can assure you 
that the latter is the better financial alternative.
    We are talking about a company that currently sits on over $35 
billion in cash. Compare that to your remedies. Any small company 
that wishes to provide PC software applications that compete in 
anyway with a Microsoft product had better think again. As a casual 
observer with no ties to the high tech or software industry, I have 
been alarmed at the predatory practices of Microsoft. It continues 
to this day. Just try to use a competing application on your PC. You 
should check out Windows XP and see the contempt they have for you. 
As a capitalist I admire Microsoft's aggressive and competitive 
tactics. As an entrepenuer, I am disheartened at the closed 
opportunities that will lead to the absence of software innovation.
    I hope the nine states that are standing firm can help you 
remember the reasons why the suit was brought in the first place.
    Regards,
    Michael Frawley



MTC-00009534

From: Tony B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement worked out between Microsoft, the 
Federal Government and the states aligned with the government in the 
anti trust suit. The settlement is good for consumers and the 
economy and should be approved as written. Moreover, the judge in 
the case, should pressure the remaining states to accept the 
settlement terms since the terms maintain competition in the 
marketplace, encourage innovation, and provide consumers with 
software choices at some of the most competitive (cheap) prices in 
the history of our nation. Moreover, the handful of states that are 
still pressing the anti-trust case are needlessly wasting taxpayer 
dollars and are engaged in a politically motivated vendata that has 
no benefit for consumers--their actions only benefit a handful of 
disgruntled Microsoft competitors who have not been able to 
effectively compete in the marketplace because of their poor 
strategies and inferior, overpriced products.
    Thank you for listening to a happy consumer!
    Sincerely.
    Tony Bray



MTC-00009535

From: Michael Ubaldi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:56am
Subject: A Lesson in Laissez-Faire
    Having received notice that the DOJ is accepting public comments 
regarding the Microsoft antitrust situation, I decided to pass along 
an op-ed I recently ran in a local newsletter.
    Impatient creatures we are, we?re best off remembering that 
faith in time-honored institutions will straighten out even the most 
undesirable situations. Take the free market and personal computing, 
for instance. There are those of us who use Macintosh. There are 
those of us who use PC's with a Microsoft Windows operating system 
(OS). And then there are those of us who use Windows and are not 
satisfied.
    Few PC-based alternatives exist, however, as Microsoft controls 
over 90% of the PC OS market. The major obstacle preventing a 
serious challenger to Windows is compatibility. Here's the tidy 
little paradox: nearly all applications for PC's are coded for 
Windows; users are unwilling to sacrifice their tools for another OS 
and decide to stay with Windows; vendors, unable to waste precious 
capital, cannot design for an OS that no one will use; alternate 
OS's are left with no programs with which to compete. So nearly all 
applications (and PC users) stick with Windows. The Clinton Justice 
Department saw in this an antitrust violation and resolved to gouge 
a rent in Microsoft for ?competition? to enter. Up went the circus

[[Page 25165]]

tents, in paraded the subpoenas and the biased rulings?thankfully, 
the Bush administration put an end to this nonsense. Down went the 
circus tents.
    Last October, news media were alerted to a new PC operating 
system called LindowsOS. Unlike any other alternative OS, it will 
attempt to be compatible with all Windows programs. Appealing to 
small businesses, it hopes to capitalize on Windows dissatisfaction. 
A prototype will be marketed to the public by the second quarter of 
2002 (http://www.lindows.com). As any other enterprise in a free 
market, Microsoft is vulnerable to perceived negligence; LindowsOS 
and other spoilers like it will either win PC users over with 
superior services or else give Microsoft good reasons to reach out 
to consumers. All this without Washington, D. C.?s meddling. It's 
overdue vindication for those who know that the best way to solve a 
simple market problem is to leave the darn thing alone.
    (c) Copyright Michael Ubaldi, All Rights Reserved.
    Michael Ubaldi



MTC-00009536

From: David Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    Dear overpaid Nazi bureaucrats:
    Time to lay off Microsoft and go after the real criminals: 
Hillary, Bill and all of their theiving, traitorous ilk that started 
this unnecessary lawsuit in the first place. While you're at it, it 
is time to scrap the ``P.A.T.R.I.O.T.'' assault on our civil rights. 
Your disregard of the Bill of Rights is far more of a threat to 
America than all the terrorists in the world. You can also tell 
Attorney General Ashcroft I'm sorry I ever supported him. It's a 
pity his Senate opponent died and he survived.
    A most dissatisfied customer,
    David Graham
    1625 Walnut Ave.
    Grand Junction, CO 81501



MTC-00009537

From: Mark Leary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:58am
Subject: MS settlement
    Please settle this matter, further litigation is just a waste of 
taxpayers money and besides is this not what we as Americans is all 
about FREEDOM to innovate.
    Leave Microsoft alone! They have done so much good for the 
industry.
    Mark J. Leary



MTC-00009538

From: Joyce Nymeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft Settlement.
    I want to end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.
    Marlene Nymeyer
    25508 South Klemme
    Crete, Illinois 60417
    [email protected]



MTC-00009539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and was a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. I as a consumer 
have the right to choose what I want to buy. And I will choose 
Micrsoft products every time. They are superior to their 
competitors. These competitors should quite their belly aching about 
Bill Gates and his products. They should get off their dead butts 
and invent a better product if they want their share of the money. 
That is the American way. Not crying to government to bring a 
company down to their inferior level. Thank God that didn't happen 
with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Dodge brothers and all the other 
great entrepreneurs of America or we would be no better than the 
third world countries.
    Sincerely,
    Denise Morningstar
    1019 S Division St
    Whitehall, MI 49461-1701
    email [email protected]



MTC-00009540

From: Dorothy Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I want to register my support for the Microsoft settlement. I 
believe it is in the best interest of me, the industry and the 
American economy.
    Thank you,
    Dorothy Wagner
    465 Beach 133rd St.
    Belle Harbor, NY 11694



MTC-00009541

From: Arnold Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft
    Gentlemen, can we please stop this anti-business, anti-
entrepreneurship, anti-anybody getting too far ahead of the masses 
in this country? It seems to me that our country has been on the 
slippery slope toward socialism for too long now. It's time to 
reaffirm that ours is a country of opportunity for all those who are 
willing to work to reap the benefits of our freedom. Let's stop 
discouraging Americans to excell by punishing them by taking from 
their hard-earned gains and redistributing to those with less 
initiative and drive. Microsoft is an American company providing 
thousands of good jobs and contributing greatly to our nation's 
economy. Sure they are competitive. They continue to improve and 
expand their product line and do it in a way that serves their 
customers well and favors the wider use of their product line. Why 
is this a no-no? Can't their competitors do the same? Who's holding 
them back? Customers have a choice. Microsoft is not shutting others 
out of the business. I am tired of the whining competitors who seek 
the governments' help in their attempts to limit Microsoft's 
marketing initiatives. If they can't win share from Microsoft on 
their own, then don't we have the best company with the best 
products and service out front?
    Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in the land of 
opportunity?
    Arnold Davis
    Louisville, TN 37777



MTC-00009542

From: Charles Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Please end this trial and the wasteful spending of our tax 
dollars. This company did nothing but follow the rules set up by our 
government and it is being penalized for it. Get the government out 
of the way of companies that make this country work. Bureaucrats and 
the courts have no business in this case. Let the competitive nature 
of this business be the determining facture whether they succeed or 
fail.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Wood
    2886 Ravenwood Drive
    Snellville, GA 30078
    770-972-2048
    [email protected]



MTC-00009543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    As a computer user and lover of technology since the early 
eighties, I feel compelled to weigh in regarding the recent 
`settlement' between Microsoft and the DOJ.
    I've used computers since the firs Xerox Star, Apple Lisa, and 
DOS based PC's (before Windows). I also worked for New England 
Telephone/NYNEX/Bell Altantic/Verizon until July of this year in our 
Technology Center in Framingham, MA. This allowed me to see almost 
every kind of consumer computer available. I was and I am an avid 
reader of technology magazines and websites. I can distinctly 
remember in the early nineties, reading about Microsoft's tactics in 
establishing their monopoly. I wondered even then, how they were 
getting away with `borrowing' Apple's look and feel and making 
exclusionary contracts with OEM's. Through the years, as I read 
about how they sabotaged DR-DOS, lied to customers about the ability 
of their software, produced false evidence in their trials, etc. I 
began to actually hate Microsoft and its executive board.
    Since I was in charge of the Macintosh LAN at work, I was able 
to see firsthand how the Macs were never in need of consistent 
software patches or prone to the multitude ofproblems my PC 
counterpart encountered. It once took 3 technicians and four days of 
telephone support from Microsoft to get one PC to print properly. I 
just couldn't believe how any company got anything done using PC 
computers!!
    Because of MS' thumbing of their nose at our free market economy 
and antitrust laws, we have become a country of billions of

[[Page 25166]]

dollars of lost production due to their software which is so 
unsecure and virus supporting that even the F.B.I. has to 
investigate it. This is ludicrous when one realizes that there are 
other options. Unfortunately, even after Windows XP was shown to be 
the most unsecure OS ever built, MS' stock went up. Why? Because 
they are such an entrenched monopoly that no company can afford to 
even think of using an alternative.
    MS has so much money they were able to back two bidders in the 
auction for AT&T's cable business. No company should have that kind 
of power. I beg of you to stop Microsoft. They should have been 
broken up into three pieces; one that makes the OS, one that makes 
the applications like Office, and a browser company. The 
applications company would have definitely kept making Office for 
the Macintosh and would've loved to make a version for LINUX. 
(today, we have the AG's trying to force Microsoft to do what any 
other competitive company would normally do).
    The browser company would have to compete with Netscape for 
business. The OS company would be forced to build better quality in 
their OS or else the app developers would build their apps for the 
most stable platform, which is UNIX based platforms like Mac and 
LINUX. Read the message forums at ZDnet.com. Even Wintel users are 
wary of Microsoft's power and this whole PASSPORT, HAILSTORM, .NET 
initiative that will let Microsoft put their tentacles into every 
single aspect of our daily lives.
    You have the power to literally change and save the world of 
computing. I beg of you, please dish out the punishment a convicted, 
predatory, monopolist deserves. Break them up and let other, truly 
innovative companies rise to the top. You will be doing a great 
service to people like me who for ten years has seen the world of 
computing, which I love, languish and be held captive to the beast 
from Redmond.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
    Sincerely,
    Frank D'Angeli
    57 Pinkert Street
    Medford, MA 02155
    781 396-5815
    [email protected]



MTC-00009544

From: Gerry De Cave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:37am
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse
    Please stop squandering taxpayer's money in your pursuit of 
Microsoft. Competition means creating better goods and offering 
superior services to the consumer. The government should not be 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations. With the 
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepeneurs will be 
encouraged to create new and competitive products.
    Disgustedly,
    Gerry De Cave



MTC-00009545

From: Breton, Mark
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  10:47am
    Subject: I would like to see the case against Microsoft dropped, 
and for someone to I would like to see the case against Microsoft 
dropped, and for someone to put a stop to all the money being wasted 
in that proceeding.
    Mark Breton
    204 Hillcrest dr
    Gallatin TN 37066



MTC-00009546

From: Pearson, Conrad
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  10:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As both a consumer and an IT Professional I have been against 
the antitrust action against Microsoft from the beginning. In the 
years that I have been using Microsoft operating systems, starting 
with MS-DOS 1.1, I have seen the cost of the software come down 
while the functionality has been greatly enhanced. There is another 
important consideration as well: standardization. Had I chosen to 
write this using MS-Word and send it to you as an attachment there 
is an 86% chance that you would be able to merely open it and read 
it. This was not the case 10 years ago, and it is because of 
Microsoft's clout in the industry that this wonderful 
standardization has taken place.
    As a consumer, and as an IT Professional, I have alternative 
choices in the operating system and application software that I use 
and/or deploy and I have, in some cases, chosen the alternatives. 
For the most part, the Microsoft solutions are the best value. The 
antitrust action against Microsoft is not, in my opinion, in the 
interest of the consumer, is not in the interest of business in 
general, and is not in the interest of the computer industry. 
Perhaps from a standpoint of technical merit Microsoft is guilty, 
but if you consider the original purpose of existing antitrust laws 
I do not believe in Microsoft's guilt.
    I believe that the role of the DOJ should be to insure that 
competition remains, but in doing so Microsoft should remain intact 
and it's history of innovation should not be constrained in any 
manner.
    Conrad Pearson
    Manager, Information Systems
    Excellon Automation
    phone: +1-310-534-6436
    fax: +1-310-534-6777



MTC-00009547

From: Debbie Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    The only thing accomplished by the lawsuit brought against 
Microsoft, is the hurting of the tech industry. The only reason 9 
states are continuing the lawsuit is because the 9 states are in 
financial trouble, and I look at the lawsuits as blackmail. Please 
stop this. Noone is bringing these lawsuits in my name or to help 
me. All it has done is make me sure that I will NEVER buy anything 
from the companies that helped bring the lawsuits.
    Debbie Davis
    Dixon, CA



MTC-00009548

From: Ronald Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone and let the free market prevail.
    Mr. and Mrs. R. W. Stone
    N12356 Copenhaver Avenue
    Stanley, Wisconsin 54768



MTC-00009549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is fair and just,



MTC-00009550

From: Gerald Rosenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:59am
Subject: USAGRosenberg--Gerald--1035--0103
    Gerald Rosenberg
    3530 Mystic Pointe Drive, # 2115
    Aventura, FL 33180-4541
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to voice my opinion in regards to the Microsoft 
settlement issue. I support the settlement that was reached on 
November 6th. I feel that this settlement is fair and reasonable, 
and I am relieved that this issue is resolved.
    Due to this settlement, Microsoft has pledged to share more 
information with other information tech companies, Microsoft will 
follow procedures to make it easier to install non-Microsoft 
software and will disclose information about software codes in order 
to do this, and a Technical Committee (TC) will enforce the 
provisions at Microsoft's expense.
    This settlement will make it easier to compete with Microsoft. I 
have been a user of Windows since the inception. From a personal 
standpoint, I want to say that no supplier of software to the 
computer gives better support to their customers. If you read the on 
line responses from users around the country you would see that the 
vast majority of negative comment about Microsoft only comes from 
their competition. Any one that offers a better program will capture 
the market. Let me enjoy my computer in peace and let Microsoft be 
there for me and others.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Rosenberg



MTC-00009551

From: Jim Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the expeditious settlement of the Microsoft case. It 
is time to STOP the Clinton ERA anti-trust process that stifles fair 
competition.
    James and Christina Horn
    [email protected]



MTC-00009552

From: Ted Burgess
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25167]]

Date: 1/8/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is time to end this Clinton era bashing. Lets stop 
this effort to hurt successful business enterprises.
    Ted Burgess



MTC-00009554

From: Rose Marie Lavelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:07am
Subject: for all the people, not the few
    Let us move on with the things of today and not the pass, end it 
now!
    ROBERT M.LAVELLE
    122 WHISPERING PINE DR.
    PALM COAST FL. 32164



MTC-00009555

From: Mary Smith
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement...
    I just wanted to ask for a speedy resolution to this settlement. 
I think that the agreeable compromise that Microsoft is willing to 
uphold and embraced by 9 states needs to be put through.
    I believe in free enterprise, I am discouraged that those who 
are less innovative are able to take from those freely who are 
innovative and wise in business...
    Get big government out of free enterprise.... Free enterprise 
works... We the people love Microsoft (#1 software) in the world... 
why??? Because of Microsoft's strong arm tactics? NO, but because 
it's user friendly, excellent products, what the world is using, 
excellent technical support and excellent interface capabilities.... 
It's too bad that we live in a nation where those who don't want to 
work so hard and aren't as visionary are able to whine and complain 
and hinder the work of those really great inventors who do work hard 
and come up with great ideas, great products, great results. It's 
time to tell the whiners to get a life... If they can't cut the 
mustard, get out of the kitchen... They and our Government are 
directly responsible for the downturn that the economy has seen in 
the technology industry.... It really makes one want to jump right 
in and invent something wonderful when those who are mediocre can 
jump in and tear down the best that there is... Shame on you!



MTC-00009556

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am an electrical and computer systems engineer who would like 
to comment on the ruling against Microsoft. I believe it is in the 
best interest of the consumer and the computer industry if Microsoft 
be prohibited from retaliating against an OEM if that OEM provides 
software on their machine which competes against Microsoft, or if 
the OEM provides a dual boot system.
    I should like to mention a specific case as an example. The 
BeOS, created by former Apple employees among others, represents a 
substantial leap in OS technology, but has been unsuccessful in the 
commercial market, largely due to the lack of machines offered with 
BeOS as a native OS or dual boot alternative. BeOS is currently used 
in computers which are not personal computers, but commercial 
systems which allow editing of audio and video, and in many cases is 
the choice of professionals for multimedia work, choosing to write 
their own software for BeOS rather than use existing software and 
Microsoft Windows. BeOS has been bought by Palm, Inc. and dissolved, 
due to it's lack of market success, which I feel is directly related 
to the policies of Microsoft which kept BeOS from being offered side 
by side with Windows on PC's.
    Please take into consideration the effect of Microsoft on BeOS 
in your decision. Thank you for your thoughtful diligence in this 
case.
    Russell Ivey



MTC-00009557

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:13am
Subject: Settlement
    Quit the politics and let all of us move on with life, liberty 
and a bit of business sense.



MTC-00009558

From: noel harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1l:17am
    Please leave Microsoft alone and go after real criminals, the 
worst of which are elected officials and their underlings.
    Noel Harris



MTC-00009559

From: Scald Master
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    1) MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested 
in porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either 
in form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can 
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    2) The Win32 API needs to be available so that BeWine can be 
successfully ported not only to BeOS but other OS too.
    3) The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    4) The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
    ``God is real, unless declared integer.''
    Eu apoio a candidatura de Cthulhu a presidencia! Junte-se a 
campanha! http://www.cthulhu.org Parkinson's Fourth Law:
    The number of people in any working group tends to increase 
regardless of the amount of work to be done.



MTC-00009560

From: Gen LaGreca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the anti-trust laws are non-objective and 
unconstitutional. Only coercion can cause a monopoly to form, which 
means only firms that are run and/or supported by the government can 
forcibly restrict competition from entering a field and be 
monopolies (e.g., the US Postal Service, the medallion cabs in New 
York City). We would not even have a computer industry if it weren't 
for Microsoft. The government has no means to give us a computer 
industry, but it thinks it has the power to suppress firms in it at 
will. I say laissez-faire, leave it alone! Leave Microsoft alone and 
stop persecuting big business.
    Businessmen have a right to life, liberty and property, too, 
without being regulated out of existence by ``Big Brother.''
    Genevieve LaGreca
    405 North Wabash Ave., # 714
    Chicago, IL 60611



MTC-00009561

From: Dickie Horn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Suit
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Lets end this Clinton era fandangle and let Microsoft alone.
    Dickie Horn
    Bartlesville, Ok



MTC-00009562

From: Keith Fette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft
    2716 Bentley Court
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45244
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to ask for your support in the effort 
to bring the Microsoft antitrust case to an end. The best way you 
can do this is to show firm backing of the settlement you have 
reached with the Microsoft Corporation.
    Certain anti-Microsoft special interests may try to derail this 
settlement or have it withdrawn. That is why this settlement needs 
your firm backing. These interests would have the public falsely 
believe that this settlement is too soft on Microsoft but this is 
not the case. This settlement discloses Microsoft's internal 
interfaces, a major concession and something that has never been 
done by a software firm before. This will allow competing firms to 
create better software to compete with Microsoft. This is just one 
of the major changes that Microsoft has made to make the IT industry 
more competitive. Any further continuation of this case will just be 
a waste of time and resources. A settlement is in the best interests 
of both parties and the American people.
    Microsoft has done immeasurable good for the United States and 
does not deserve to be harassed in this manner, especially in light 
of the current depressed state of the

[[Page 25168]]

economy. The success of the economy is dependent upon the success of 
companies such as Microsoft who directly or indirectly employee 
countless Americans with very good jobs throughout every state of 
the union.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Fette



MTC-00009563

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 7, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement reached by the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft several months ago. This decision was reached after a 
long, hard three year court battle. The settlement imposed a broad 
series of restrictions and obligations on Microsoft, even extending 
to products and technologies that were not at issue in the lawsuit. 
Further, a ``Technical Committee'' has been established whereby any 
third party will be free to lodge a complaint. I think Microsoft has 
more than paid for its success. Bill Gates was simply better, 
quicker, faster to put his product on the market, incorporating his 
software into computer technology. Such success breeds jealousy. 
However, it is over and done. It is time to move on. We need now to 
concentrate on our economy and one way to do this is to quit 
rehashing decisions that were made several months ago. Microsoft has 
contributed mightily to this country's economy, and the world's, and 
I think Bill Gates should now be allowed to go forward with his 
business and not be hampered by those who are not as good as Mr. 
Gates. I might add that Bill gates has done more for the TYPEWRITER 
than anyone age 40 or over could ever in their wildest dreams have 
imagined. I was a Business Education teacher for 20 years, and 
taught typing, including erasures, corrections, set-up, tabulation, 
letter preparation, filing, financial statements, and all of those 
things made so simple by our Bill Gates. Yes, life is more beautiful 
because of Bill, and I support the settlement. Thank You.
    Sincerely
    Donald Erskine



MTC-00009564

From: Nick Sayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:32am
Subject: Reply comments to proposed settlement
    Nicholas W. Sayer
    2351 Sutter Ave #2
    Santa Clara, CA 95050-6640
    [email protected]
    This is my response to the proposed settlement of US v. 
Microsoft as called for under the Tunney Act.
    The proposed settlement is at the least inadequate and at most 
actually rewards Microsoft and punishes its competitors for its past 
behavior. It must not be forgotten that Microsoft has been found 
guilty of anticompetitive behavior. Any settlement must take into 
account what has been (it can now be said) proven in a court of law. 
If one wanted to be charitable and keep the major components of the 
settlement, one would have to demand that the section that talks 
about Microsoft being required to open its protocol specifications 
to certain well-heeled competitors be recrafted to require opening 
those specifications to everyone. The settlement ratifies 
Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop and seeks to insure a level 
playing field elsewhere. The position of open-source operating 
systems and software would be damaged beyond any possible repair if 
they were not allowed to participate as equal partners sharing in 
the same information as commercial entities. Disclosure of such 
information would not in any way harm Microsoft (we're not talking 
about Microsoft's unpublished source code. We're merely talking 
about specification documentation), and would certainly benefit 
consumers indirectly by giving them more choices for their backend 
servers, which would spur Microsoft to insure that their 
implementations were competitive both in price and quality. But the 
real pity is that all of the above presumes, as the settlement 
already does, that Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop is 
sacrosanct. It should not be. A much better settlement would address 
the root of the problem--the OEM agreements between Microsoft and 
major PC manufacturers, for it is the fact that OEMs are actually 
prevented by Microsoft from providing alternative platforms to 
consumers that makes alternative platforms unattractive. Such 
unattractiveness is the fount from which pour like a flood all 
advantages Microsoft has in the desktop marketplace. The following 
steps are necessary to address this:
    1. OEMs should be required to list the cost of any and all 
Microsoft software supplied preinstalled on the computer at 
purchase-time as a separate line item. Customers should be allowed 
to purchase computers either without any such software at all 
(should they wish to purchase or otherwise obtain it elsewhere) or 
by choosing from alternatives offered by the OEMs. Microsoft argues 
that this would merely encourage piracy of their products. Such an 
argument completely ignores any possibility that suitable software 
could be found elsewhere (which clearly is the case despite 
Microsoft's monopoly). The status quo allows Microsoft to 
effectively levy a tax on all pre-built computer systems regardless 
of whether the user intends to actually use the supplied Microsoft 
software or not. Users who wish to run an alternative operating 
system are thus required to pay for two of them, one of which they 
will never use.
    2. OEMs should be allowed to offer machines configured with 
multiple operating systems if they (and the customers) choose. 
Currently OEMs are barred from doing so by Microsoft. It is possible 
(indeed, it is a frequent occurrence) for one computer to allow the 
user to select at boot time from a number of alternative operating 
systems, giving the user the choice to select the one desired for 
the task at hand. Requiring the user to repartition the hard disk 
(throwing away the preinstalled software provided by the OEM at 
purchase time) in order to make room for alternative operating 
systems is a significant hurdle that solidifies Microsoft's death-
grip on the desktop marketplace. If the settlement did nothing more 
than these two things, I believe it would be sufficient to reignite 
competition in the desktop operating system marketplace. Microsoft 
would not be punished beyond merely forcing them to be on a level 
playing field with everyone else. Isn't that the outcome that 
everyone wants?
    Signed,
    Nicholas W. Sayer



MTC-00009565

From: Holly Kirchofer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a software engineer and I remember well what it was like 
before Microsoft came along. Computers were very expensive and very 
difficult to use. Every piece of software required it's own set of 
cryptic commands, none of it worked very well together, and it was 
very expensive. Microsoft standardized the PC and made it practical 
and affordable to own a PC. Some of the things that the Microsoft 
competitors are whining about are the very innovations that I 
appreciated from Microsoft. It is so nice to have everything 
integrated into the operating system; it makes life easier. From a 
consumer's perspective, Microsoft has had a very positive impact on 
this industry and has done more to benefit the consumer than all of 
the other companies put together. It's time to settle this case and 
let Microsoft once again focus on what they do best. I do use 
software from other companies beside Microsoft; I have this choice. 
However, if we want to talk about monopolies, let's talk about 
Bellsouth. I do not have a choice in the phone line coming into my 
house and it is a constant source of frustration when using the 
computer. Bellsouth does not provide hardware capable of supporting 
DSL or even a 56K modem in my neighborhood.
    Sincerely,
    Holly Kirchofer
    [email protected]
    3105 N. Indian River Dr.
    Cocoa, Fl. 32922



MTC-00009566

From: Nancy J. Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Department of Justice
    RE: Pending Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to give you a few comments on why I believe this 
case needs to be settled as quickly as possible.
    1. In the current economic situation, we, the Country, do not 
need the uncertainty that this case is causing.
    2. Many of the claims that have been made are not relative in 
today's environment. For example, I have the option to use whatever 
software I choose to on my computer. I am not bound by what is 
installed when I purchased it (example--I much prefer

[[Page 25169]]

Netscape to Internet Explorer.) (Another demonstration of being able 
to choose although not related to Microsoft--even though AOL comes 
loaded on my computer, I have the free choice not to use it).
    3. Finally, rather than punish Microsoft, we should be thanking 
them for bringing us into the computer world. Prior to Microsoft, 
computer software could not talk to each, computers were not 
compatible with one another, and the list goes on and on. I remember 
very well when computers were as foreign to the average person as 
speaking Latin. Today even Grandma and Grandpa are using computers 
to stay in touch with family. And don't you believe for a second 
that a lot of this progress wasn't directly due to the work Micros 
did.
    Nancy J Tate



MTC-00009567

From: Ken D'Ambrosio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:36am
Subject: Remedies for Microsoft antitrust suit.
    Being as it currently appears that no settlement will occur, I 
felt it in my, and my industry's, best interests to express my 
feelings with regards to Microsoft, their actions, and some 
potential remedies. First and foremost, let me explain that I have 
been a system administrator for close to 20 years, and have had in-
depth experience with most every operating system that Microsoft has 
released, since and including DOS 2.0 and Windows 1.0. In all that 
time, I have seen relatively little of the much-vaunted 
``innovation'' that Microsoft claims. For example, it was only when 
Digital Research's DR-DOS had clearly surpassed DOS 3.x's 
capabilities (partition size, full-screen editor, etc.) that 
Microsoft enhanced their own version of DOS (4.01 and 5.0 addressed 
the two above issues, respectively). It was also during the beta 
phase of Windows 3.1, however, that they caused DR-DOS' own 
operating system to crash when attempting to run Windows (1).
    While I certainly can't criticize a company for attempting to 
make money, I can when I believe they are hurting the consumers they 
purport to help. I have seen Microsoft attempt this, time and again, 
when Microsoft intentionally obfuscates file formats(2), 
communications protocols, and API interactions, not to mention the 
explicit desire to sabotage competition with said practices(3).
    Finally, some of their latest legal shenanigans include a case 
against Lindows (www.lindows.com), a Linux/Windows hybrid. It 
contends that Lindows infringes on Microsoft's trademark of 
``Windows''(4). I, personally, find it abhorrent that Windows, a 
descriptive name if ever I heard one, was able to be trademarked in 
the first place, and certainly find nothing wrong with combining the 
first half of the word ``Linux'' with the second half of the word 
``Windows'': I find it unlikely in the extreme that anyone would 
become confused in any way about this--certainly no moreso than 
Windows, itself, would become confused with the previously 
trademarked windowing system for Unix, X Windows(5). So, given a 
history of consistent, persistent abuses--many more of which I have 
failed to discuss (eg. Stac Software vs. Microsoft), but would 
willingly do so upon request--I humbly submit that only pervasive, 
unarguable remedies will cause Microsoft to alter its behavior.
    --In order for alternative operating systems (eg., Linux, or the 
now defunct BeOS) to be viable from a price perspective, new 
computer purchases should have the operating system cost be 
seperated out from the cost of the system as a whole. That way, the 
consumer is aware of what he is paying for, and what alternatives 
would truly cost, instead of merely purchasing a bundled system, and 
having no idea how much money is being spent on software.
    --Microsoft uses much that is proprietary in their system, which 
can then, in turn, lock out competitors from creating competing 
programs. (The fact that Microsoft has the best-selling operating 
system, an embedded web browser, and the best-selling office 
software suite, gives them an almost airtight stranglehold on what 
is essentially a self-contained system.) Therefore, I recommend that 
all proprietary formats, protocols, etc., be opened: the API, 
itself, file formats for all (non-licensed) applications, 
communications protocols, and anything else that would hinder 
competitors from being on a level playing field when writing 
applications for the Windows platform. Being that I am (obviously) a 
lay person, please forgive my relative ignorance of pertinent law 
and/or guidelines for submission, but I felt it important that I 
take the time to comment, and give some background.
    Thank you for your time,
    Ken D'Ambrosio
    Sr. System Administrator,
    Xanoptix, Inc. 1) See Caldera vs. Microsoft (http://
www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/lineo1--10--00.html), which was settled out 
of court, but which was documented quite well by the respected 
industry journal ``Dr. Dobbs Magazine'', as well as ``Red Herring'' 
(http://www.tbtf.com/archive/0159.html#s02). 2) http://kt.zork.net/
kernel-traffic/kt20001225--99.html#5, look for paragraph starting 
``Elsewhere, Jeff V. M. added...'' 3) http://winnetou.lcd.lu/
halloween1.html#--Toc427495714 4) http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/12/20/237217&mode=thread 5) http://www.x.org/
terms.htm, bottom of page.



MTC-00009568

From: Barker, Philip
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft and litigation
    As a computer reseller in metropolitan Detroit, the actions 
taken by your government organization against Microsoft has had 
profound changes in the perception of the computer industry with our 
commercial customers. Prior to the economic declines in August 2000, 
many companies held off on implementing technology in the workplace 
that would improve productivity based on the actions of Justice 
Department actions against Microsoft. These Justice Department 
actions created an aura of uncertainty in the minds of our 
commercial customers and postponed any decision on technology 
implementations--thus slowing everything down. You really put a 
stick in the spokes of progress.
    I believe these Justice Department actions have jammed up the 
American economy, jobs and economic livelihood of millions of people 
and tens of thousands of viable technology companies.
    We have been reselling PC computer products since the early 
1980's and I can tell you that the wild west frontier of the early 
1980 in selling computer products was truly a `snake oil' 
environment. Rife with deceptive advertising, `vaporware' products, 
products that did not work as advertised, multiple bugs and the list 
of horrors goes on.
    What Microsoft did in the 1980's was develop a `standardized' 
platform whereby programmers and computer component manufacturer 
companies could develop and market products with a relative 
confidence that the products would work.
    Upon this standardized platform, the market for PC computer 
technology was born along with millions of jobs and taxpaying 
companies--all working together to move the technology of America 
forward--increase our standards of living and our place on earth. My 
firm belief is that the actions of the Justice Department will deal 
a blow to the concept of `standardized' platforms--a return the wild 
west days of `snake oil' computer solutions full of bugs and a 
return to vaporware and a disjointed technology industry--a 
scrambled mess. I recommend the following:
    (1) Make your decision soon so America can return to forward 
momentum
    (2) Take into account that Microsoft has developed a Technology 
industry in America that has created millions of jobs and taxpaying 
companies
    (3) A return to the anarchy and awkward technology business 
practices of the early 1980's benefits no-one and will drain 
American productivity
    (4) Be fair to the American public and the technology companies 
that employ them
    Sincerely,
    Philip T. Barker
    Vice President
    Web Site: http://www.electrosonics.net/>
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Electrosonics, Inc.
    17150 15 Mile Road
    Fraser, Michigan 48026-3442
    Telephone Number: (586) 415-5555
    Fax Number: (586) 415-0770
    Cell Phone: (586) 764--4718
    Business Hours: 8:15am-5pm EST--Monday--Friday



MTC-00009569

From: Bar-Jac Bar-Jac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
    This trial has cost taxpayers dollars that could have been more 
wisely spent on defense of our country.
    Competition has made our country the Great Country that it is 
today and our government should take a ``hands off'' policy where 
business is concerned.
    I strongly support the microsoft settlement. Please settle this 
matter and let's start over,

[[Page 25170]]

encouraging business growth and entrepreneurism. Thank you for 
listening to my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Strickland



MTC-00009570

From: Irving Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``1200 Shoreview Drive Lima Ohio 45805''
    January 8, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am certainly among the group of people who approve of the 
Microsoft antitrust case settlement. I believe that the federal 
government has had more than enough input into this matter and it's 
time to let Microsoft and the rest of the industry re-focus on 
business as usual.
    The proposed settlement amply satisfies the concerns of 
Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft will now share information about 
the internal workings of Windows with its competitors, allowing them 
to more easily install their own software on Windows-based systems. 
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against vendors that use 
or sell non-Microsoft products. All of these terms will be enforced 
by a technical review committee, created by the settlement, to 
ensure that Microsoft adheres to the terms of its agreement with the 
Department of Justice. Further sanctions and restrictions would be 
unnecessary and counterproductive.
    This antitrust case has dragged on for far too long, and the 
settlement is the best available option to bring it to a swift end. 
I fully support the settlement, and wish to go on record as doing 
so.
    Sincerely,
    Irving Kaufman



MTC-00009571

From: Jerry (038) Jodene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:00pm
    End the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse



MTC-00009572

From: Marie Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:03pm
Subject: Lawsuit
    It's time to let this irresponsible suit go. I believe this suit 
was the cause of the fall of the stock market and the recession. 
Clinton believed in punishing people for their achievements, but I 
don't. Please drop this lawsuit.
    Marie Miller
    Cedar City, UT



MTC-00009573

From: Drewski
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general@ po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/8/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft and Anti-Trust
    Without real punishment, Microsoft will never change its ways. 
You only have to look to Windows XP to see this. This lawsuit never 
should have been about integrating ONE product into another, but the 
entire PRACTICE of integration. MS needs to be broken up into three 
companies--OS, User Applications, Server Applications. Sooner is 
better than later.
    --Drew



MTC-00009574

From: charles schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    I support the agreement as fair and in the best interests of 
America.
    Charles Schneider



MTC-00009575

From: Carole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think the Microsoft settlement is good for consumers like me 
and also that it is in the best interest of the American economy and 
the computer industry. Any further litigation will not serve the 
public interest and will only deter from innovation in the industry. 
I just wanted my voice to be heard on this matter.
    Thank you
    Carole Lynch Memphis TN



MTC-00009576

From: Steve Sawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    Greetings,
    I have been involved in the IT industry since 1981. I watched 
Microsoft, Apple and others work their way up the corporate ladder 
with innovative ideas and hard work. They deserve much of the fruits 
of their labor.
    However, in Microsoft's case, they have been doing much more 
harm than good to the consumer over the past several years. As a 
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Business 
Administration, I have watched with fascination the methods with 
which Microsoft has eliminated competition and coerced vendors into 
doing business Microsoft's way. All of this while their own products 
continue to slide, in terms of quality and technical advancement. 
The result is a two-edged sword. They spend time and resources 
wiping out competitive ideas leaving little reason or incentive to 
improve their own. Then the
    Government and the courts comes along and `endorses' this 
approach by mandating toothless laws with little or no enforcement. 
Microsoft is trying to do this with Linux as well as others. 
Microsoft is a great company. Bill Gates and crew should be 
applauded for what they have done for technology. However, Microsoft 
has become a textbook example of why we have rules governing 
monopolistic practices in this country. When Billy Graham gets 
caught speeding he receives a ticket for speeding and he pays the 
fine. Microsoft got caught and it is time to pay the fine.
    Do America and Microsoft a favor and put a stop to the dark side 
of Microsoft.
    Thank you...
    Steve
    Steve Sawyer
    Director of Internet Development
    Market America, Inc.
    [email protected] 



MTC-00009577

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    It is my humble opinion that this is a fair settlement and 
should go forward. I have never had a problem with Microsoft and 
believe they have moved us along in the computer age and they have 
done so with hard work and debticsation.
    Sincerely yours,
    Eric T Baggett



MTC-00009578

From: Burkhard Daniel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust case
    I do not think it's in the best interest of the public to settle 
the case out of court.
    From my point of view, the suggestion made by Microsoft to set 
up a funds that sponsors schools in the purchase of software is a 
``back-door'' approach.
    Microsoft has nothing to lose from that but a lot to gain. Most 
schools benefiting from such a funds would (out of gratitude, or 
simply because Microsoft software is so widespread) purchase 
Microsoft software. Schools that had no software before now have 
Microsoft software, which only helps intensify Microsoft' almost-
monpoly on software to a new (and promising) market.
    It also seems that the change in the political climate (i.e. the 
election of President Bush) has had some impact on the devotion put 
behind the case by the DoJ, i.e. that was the one thing that made an 
out-of-court settlement an option at all (or so it seems to me). 
Once started, I think political considerations should not be allowed 
to influence judicial decisions, and that's another reason why I 
think the case should be tried in court to its conclusion.
    Burkhard Dnaie.
    Burkhard Daniel * [email protected] * http://www.burkhard.net
    Our lives are poems sung against the wind, with nothing but our 
voices to make a difference.



MTC-00009579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:35pm
Subject: Dear Sirs:
    I want to let you know that I support the
    Dear Sirs: I want to let you know that I support the Microsoft 
settlement as it is.
    Robert Quackenbos



MTC-00009580

From: Bert Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement

[[Page 25171]]

    I am a consumer using MS products, and I don't feel the case 
against MS is for my protection.
    I feel the action is because MS is successful and has a lot of 
money, that companies that were less successful, could benefit 
through the legal system. Also different States including Florida 
want some of MS's money. A form of legal extortion.
    As in the tobacco suits, the States got a lot of money,and the 
tobacco companies raised their prices. This is supposed to protect 
the end user the same way it will when MS has to raise their prices 
to pay for this litigation.
    Times have changed, since the original suit was filed. Most of 
the companies that claimed they had been hurt, no longer exist They 
have been bought-out or merged with other enities and are doing 
quite well. AOL is a good example.
    Enough is enough, stop any further litigation, that only 
benefits the legal profession and does nothing for the economy or 
the consumer.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Bert J Wood
    P.O. Box 15658
    Clearwater FL 33766
    [email protected]



MTC-00009581

From: howard stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to inform you of my opinion that the action of the United 
States Government against Microsoft is unfair and destructive. 
Microsoft is not anticompetitive; it is the US Government that is 
anticompetitive.
    We can live with Microsoft and live well; the question is 
whether or not we can live with you.



MTC-00009582

From: Douglas R. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    My comments on the settlement are simple. The Justice Department 
should have never brought this suit to begin with. In my opinion the 
antitrust laws were established in an era that could have never 
envisioned dealing with companies in a dynamic technology market 
under which Microsoft and many others flourished.
    I think this action help precipitate the decline of all 
technology companies.
    Please allow this settlement to stand for the good of the 
country's economy.
    Douglas R. White
    545 Watergate Ct
    Roswell, GA 30076
    [email protected]



MTC-00009583

From: Tom Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If you cannot open this document, I'll be happy to send it in 
any format that you need.
    Thanks
    Tom Gordon
    January 8, 2001
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the Microsoft case for the last number of 
years, and the proposed settlement disturbs me. Not in the matter 
that it's to easy on Microsoft, but that it is way too harsh. I have 
been sickened at the gross waste of money and court time in the 
proceedings in this case.
    I have developed software using Microsoft technology since the 
early 80's. Their technologies have matured and improved over those 
years not by strong arm tactics, but by the intelligent application 
of technology by smart people. The current proposed settlement puts 
a ball and chain on the operations of that company, which will 
likely diminish its ability to improve and develop new technologies, 
ultimately reducing or preventing new, innovative technologies from 
reaching consumers.
    1. Regarding Section III items D and E of the settlement
    For one to even hint that Microsoft hides secret technologies 
from competitors in order to make their applications more efficient 
is merely competitive jealousy. Of course competitors are not going 
to say nice things about their chief rival. When I was actively 
developing software, Microsoft was more than helpful in showing how 
to make it more efficient and effective. Their staff and support 
people worked directly with me and my staff to help make our systems 
better. They continue to openly and frequently train outside 
developers at multi-day knowledge transfer events all over the 
world. They reveal the low level intricacies of how their systems 
function, and how to capitalize on them. Microsoft trains all comers 
on how to write software to work with their systems! This is done in 
order to help people write better, more innovative software. Who 
ultimately defines middleware? Are the government and the courts now 
in the business of software and operating systems design? Are we 
going to allow the government to micro-manage the development of 
products in our economy? This is not what capitalism is about Why 
does Microsoft develop such good software? The answer is simple. 
Their staff has been writing Windows applications for many years. 
Experience counts when writing complex software. When Windows 3.0 
was released, I asked my WordPerfect sales rep if they were going 
upgrade their word processing system from DOS so it would work on 
the new operating system (OS). They indicated they would wait to see 
if the Windows 3.0 would work out, and that it would only take 6 
months to convert their word processor to work on it. Several years 
later, when the conversion was completed, their word processor was 
slow, clumsy and a miserable failure (in my opinion). I tried it, 
erased it, and went back to the old DOS version. When Microsoft came 
out with Word for Windows, it worked well, and I left it on my 
machine. As an experienced Windows developer, I knew WordPerfect' s 
problem was in the architecture and design of the product. It was 
impossible to efficiently change their product from DOS to Windows 
without a significant architectural modification. Microsoft's 
software engineers knew Windows, since they had been writing Windows 
application code for years. WordPerfect's engineers had not, and 
faced a steep learning curve.
    It takes 2-3 years of writing Windows code to become truly 
proficient. Tailoring applications to work with modern operating 
systems is an extremely complex task. The problem is not in what 
Microsoft tells other developers, it is in the level of experience 
of their development staff. The concept that Microsoft should reveal 
`secret' application interfaces to their operating systems (OS) to 
help competitors write more efficient code is technically dangerous. 
I shudder at the thought of any operating system or `middleware' 
manufacturer having to reveal the internal systems calls to 
developers. The result is that when the next version of the OS is 
released, the internal call might have changed by the OS vendor in 
order to implement new features, and any application code dependent 
upon that function call would likely fail. Some will say that the 
internal OS function calls should not be changed since it would be 
detrimental to the applications using it, but that's a fallacy, 
since ALL operating systems have internal function calls that may 
need to change as the operating system matures and grows. Microsoft 
has published, and continues to publish huge volumes of internal 
technical documentation on how to write systems to interact with 
their software. The books used to be small, but now can't even be 
contained on one CDROM! Their systems also have `undocumented' 
calls, many of which are documented in external publications by 
other authors, but not condoned by Microsoft. These `undocumented' 
calls are for internal operating system use, and can change from 
version to version of their systems out of necessity. These 
undocumented calls are used by developers at their own risk. Some 
choose to use them, but others study how they work and figure ways 
to leverage what they learned. For Microsoft to officially publish 
undocumented calls is fraught with risk. Such a publication of the 
`undocumented' interfaces ties the hands of Microsoft, making it 
almost impossible to evolve their operating systems. They will not 
be able to change them since competitors will be dependent upon them 
for their systems. When the operating system cannot evolve, 
technology cannot evolve, and the ultimate consumer loses.
    Revelation of internal system calls also creates a severe 
testing and stability problem of software platforms. If you cannot 
depend on applications and `middleware' software (written using the 
internal OS interfaces) to run from one version to the next of an 
operating system, the testing burden on industry (those using the 
software in a commercial environment) and consumers becomes huge. 
Such testing is necessary to insure stable migration from one 
version of a system to the next. Without it, corporate information 
networks could fail, and security could be compromised. With an 
increased testing burden, new products won't be

[[Page 25172]]

implemented rapidly (or at all), and industry as a whole suffers. 
Developers will not write software to run on platforms that haven't 
been implemented by their clients.
    Many competitors of Microsoft would love to see the internal 
system function calls documented, since it would ultimately stop the 
evolution of Windows. Would this be in the best interest of the 
consumer?
    I am not convinced that the language of the agreement is 
adequate to prevent some software developers from tying the hands of 
Microsoft, preventing it from improving the operating system due to 
some specific function call that needs to change. This would be an 
unnecessary and onerous form of punishment--preventing any evolution 
of the operating system.
    2. Regarding Section III C
    One of the amazing things about the Windows platform, from a 
development perspective, is that you can depend on certain services 
and, what appears to be called `middleware', being available for you 
applications to run. If OEM's and others are allowed to remove 
portions of Windows in order to customize it to their liking, this 
will make development of software much more difficult, as one will 
not be able to depend upon the consistency of the platform. Although 
there is apparently some language in the agreement to help alleviate 
this problem, from the development standpoint, the potential 
instability is disconcerting. Applications will have to be written 
to the lowest common denominator of technology, making them less 
attractive to consumers, and less useful.
    3. Oversight (Section IV B and C)
    In the settlement, there is a section regarding oversight of 
Microsoft's operations by a group of individuals (The `TC'), and a 
Compliance Officer.
    Isn't this almost the same thing that just about killed IBM? 
Economies are no longer national, they are global. To use a group of 
people to oversee the functions of Microsoft will stifle their 
ability to develop new systems, ultimately limiting technologies to 
the consumer. We are in a world economy. Many nations would love to 
see the demise of Microsoft, so they could take over technical 
leadership in software. If this is the case, it's not unforeseeable 
that the United States will ultimately be importing billions of 
dollars of software from other countries, instead of exporting it.
    4. Other issues discussed by individuals (and States) objecting 
to the settlement:
    Monopoly Profits: I find it very difficult, if not impossible, 
to find where, in any law, it's illegal to optimize profit. It has 
been taught in business schools from coast to coast for ages. For 
Microsoft to be admonished for making a profit digs at the heart of 
capitalism, that is, if the United States still works on a 
capitalistic economy. Microsoft `bet the company' on Windows in the 
80's and early 90's, and now some say they should be prevented from 
making a profit. How is this appropriate, fair or even legal? What 
precedent does this set? If you are innovative, should you move to 
another country that will let you make a profit? If you make a large 
financial gamble, you cannot receive gain commensurate with the risk 
involved?
    Microsoft not only competed with other operating systems, but 
with their own previous versions of Windows and `free' operating 
systems software. If Windows was priced too high, people would not 
adopt it. Customers chose to buy new versions due to a wealth of new 
features. Restricting those features would kill the market for 
operating systems.
    Microsoft as an `illegal, abusive monopoly': I realize this has 
been argued and `decided' by the courts (and the politicians and the 
press). It's quite apparent that if define a market narrowly enough, 
you can create a monopoly out of thin air. In a dynamic, well 
defined market, there is absolutely no such thing as a monopoly. In 
the case of the personal computer, if one company is making 
`monopoly profits' (in the economic sense, price above the 
equilibrium price) selling the devices, another company will figure 
a way to do the same thing, with another type of device, better 
start making `monopoly profits' of their own. This is the heart of 
capitalism. All companies that make a profit make `monopoly 
profits.' A competing product may not physically resemble the 
original, but it meets the same consumer need. The personal computer 
has just about evolved into a commodity product, and may be 
relegated to the basement junk yard in 10 years. This occurs as new 
technologies take over the tasks older technologies have been 
handling. The market is too dynamic to define a small piece of the 
pie, and declare it as a monopoly marketplace. The environment and 
the market are constantly changing.
    The only people who complain about a monopoly are the 
competitors. If there are competitors, then where is the monopoly? 
If the competitors have a better technology, then they will 
ultimately win, even if a market dominant firm tries to prevent it. 
This was appropriately demonstrated when Microsoft achieved a 
significant market position in small computer operating systems over 
the likes of IBM, DEC, Wang, Sun, Univac and others. The best and 
most cost effective system won many of those battles.
    Release Microsoft Office On Other Platforms: Some individuals 
have proposed that to make a `level playing field', Microsoft should 
publish their Office software for other operating systems. If this 
were economically viable, wouldn't someone have already created 
software that does this? Changing code to run on another operating 
system is not in the slightest manner a simple task. It may be 
impossible. It is very much like trying to attach wings to an 
automobile and calling it an airplane. The fundamental structural 
concepts between operating systems are usually significantly 
different, and interchanging applications between them is not a 
quick, or an easy task. When a feature cannot be implemented on 
another operating system due to some architectural differences, how 
do you resolve this?
    Release a Stripped Down Version of Windows: Some have proposed 
Microsoft develop a `stripped down' version of Windows that others 
could enhance. Although interesting from a technical and academic 
standpoint, this would potentially perpetuate multiple non-
compatible systems that could kill the applications software 
industry. Back when the IBM PC was young, there 3 or 4 different 
operating systems available (UCSD P-System, CPM-86, MSDOS/PCDOS and 
a few others.) They were anything but compatible. Once the MSDOS/
PCDOS system became prevalent, the industry flourished. Before that, 
developers had to pick their target operating system, and ignore the 
others, as they worked differently. This severely hampered the 
growth of the PC industry.
    Releasing the Windows Source Code: Giving away what Microsoft 
has spent many billions to develop would be tantamount to capital 
punishment and confiscation. Competitors would love the confiscation 
of others' private property, but the precedent in our economy would 
be devastating. No company would ever again be safe from the 
government taking private property without just compensation, plus 
the government would be in the situation of picking winners. If 
another company created something better, and started to obtain a 
large market share, would the government be obligated to clip their 
wings to favor the pre-determined winner?
    Requiring Microsoft to include competitor's products in Windows: 
Who would decide what products to be included in Windows? Would the 
government now be involved with Operating System design? Wouldn't 
this open a Pandora's Box where everybody would want their software 
included on the Windows Disk (ultimately, becoming multiple disks)? 
If the other companies put their software on the Windows disks, who 
would be responsible for testing and support? Shouldn't Microsoft be 
compensated for including and distributing the wares of others? What 
happens when the additional code doesn't pass the necessary tests to 
be included? Microsoft has 2 testers for every 1 developer in the 
operating systems group, and that still doesn't produce code that is 
100% bug free. Will other companies insure their code is tested to 
that level? Adding more pieces to the equation increases the testing 
load exponentially. Insure Microsoft continues to fully support 
`industry standards': Who defines the `industry standards?' Again, 
are the government and the courts going to become involved with 
operating system design? Are we to have `official' operating system 
standards and a government agency that makes certain standards 
official? What does that do to competition and consumer choice?
    Final Comments: Yes, there were likely some individuals at 
Microsoft that may have become over-zealous in their marketing 
areas. That's part of the drive for success within individual 
product groups. The technology industry is a fierce competitive 
environment; one has to fight for market share and consumer dollars. 
To severely punish the entire company for some minor infractions, to 
ultimately reduce future consumer choice and to confiscate the 
property of shareholders is tantamount to sentencing a parking 
offender to capital punishment. Thanks for bearing with my comments.
    I'm not a lawyer (which is obvious), but one who has worked in 
the personal

[[Page 25173]]

computer industry since its inception, and one who is very concerned 
about the long term implications of this case on the technology 
market, and the economy.
    Tom Gordon
    President, Framework Deliveries, LLC
    2070 Linkside Dr
    Alpharetta, GA 30005
    [email protected]



MTC-00009584

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On the matters of Bill Gates and Microsoft corporation,It seems 
to be a sad day for the United States of America,when the U.S. 
Government penalizes Microsoft for being enterprising and 
innovative.Is this not the land of the free?Where you are supposed 
to have certain rights,including intellectual ones!What Microsoft 
has done is not illegal,and there only goal was to make the world a 
smarter and easier place to live and learn in a new way never 
thought of before.Kudos to Bill Gates and Microsoft!!! Please 
``Think'' before you Judge! Thanks,
    Mr.Roy William Myers,Jr.
    Winston-Salem,N.C.
    [email protected]



MTC-00009585

From: philip tuniman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am disgusted that a bunch of politicians trying to become the 
governor or senator from Iowa or Connecticut, Massachusettts, 
California, or the other five states, are costing many retirement 
funds millions of dollars in lost Microsoft value, while they 
pretend to be helping the poor. Of course, they are not the only 
ones feathering their nest at the stock holders expense---the DOJ is 
pretty good at that too. I recall Anne Bingington (?) who went on to 
bigger and better things after winning a decision against Microsoft. 
Then there was her sucessor, the unlamented Mr. Klein, who was off 
to a big job (probably in Silicon Valley) before Judge Jackson had 
given his first interview.
    This great country was built by people who were innovators, not 
by whiners like Oracle's Ellinson, Sun Micro's McNeally, or Steve 
Case of the biggest monopoly in the country, AOL Time Warner.
    The DOJ tried for years to break up IBM before they finally 
called it off. I grew up hearing the cry, ``Break up the Yankees.'' 
People who can't cut it, are always trying to knock down the 
successful ones. Microsoft was responsible for the Technology boom. 
All of these losers who crying to the Government to breakup 
Microsoft, should get down on their knees and thank God for Bill 
Gates. He opened up the field for them.
    The Government's settlement was a good deal for everyone---Stop 
already!!



MTC-00009586

From: Jeffrey Bevelacqua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    607 Somerset Drive
    Green Bay, WI 54301
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Justice Department has kept Microsoft in court for more than 
three years, but thankfully now there is a settlement in this case. 
I am writing to express concern that this settlement may be in 
jeopardy, I hope you will support the defend you reached with 
Microsoft and an end to this case.
    Microsoft has worked hard to become a world leader in the 
software industry. The DOJ suit was meant to allay concerns about 
the power of Microsoft. This settlement does that by forcing 
Microsoft to disclose internal interfaces. This allows Microsoft 
competitors unprecedented access to Microsofts code and operating 
systems. Lets now end this case and allow Microsoft to get back to 
doing what it does best, not litigation, but software development 
and job creation. Your office can make this happen by ensuring the 
settlement is completed.
    Please fight against those that wish to derail this settlement. 
The faster this case is settled the better off the American 
information technology sector will perform in this tough economy, 
and the more time your office will have to dedicate to other 
priorities.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Bevelacqua
    cc: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00009587

From: Richard Rubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  12:58pm
Subject: One captive users comments re: Microsoft
    ONCE AGAIN I must purchase the OVERPRICED Full Install of a 
Microsoft Windows product (XP) because my previous OEM install of 
Windows (Me, with ``free upgrade to Xp'' offered by Compaq, but not 
yet received) has DEGRADED, despite my cautious grooming and care, 
to become a WORLD OF MALFUNCTIONS and CRASHES. To ``Upgrade'', even 
``for free'' would be to import your broken soft-machinery from the 
past. And the corporate claim is, once again that Xp is more stable 
than YOUR OWN OLD PRODUCT, which therefore, I infer, had a stability 
problem? And you have strong-armed your Compaq OEM contract to 
provide no relief on your DEFECTIVE PRODUCT. Little-Me will let my 
thoughts be known to appropriate ears in the penalty decisions 
pending for your creative, but overaggressive and undergenerous 
corporation.
    Richard Rubin
    10407 McClemont Avenue
    Tujunga, CA 91042
    818-951-0255



MTC-00009588

From: Mars Cheung
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone and move on. The country will 
benefit from it. Thanks.



MTC-00009589

From: Robert E. Trice, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit
    I FOR ONE THINK ITS TIME TO END THIS CASE. ITS STILL A FREE 
COUNTRY AND I AM A SUPPORTER OF BILL GATES, HE HAS A BETTER MOUSE 
TRAP AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO BUY IT, FINE, AND BETTER STILL IF HE 
WANTS TO ALSO GIVE YOU SOMETHING FREE WITH IT, BETTER STILL. GET OFF 
HIS BACK AND ON TO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE FOR A CHANGE. QUIT SPENDING 
TAX PAYERS MONEY ON A DISHONEST ACCUSER ANYHOW. THANK YOU



MTC-00009590

From: Eric Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust case
    Isn't it time to get over the misguided suit against Microsoft? 
there are far more important situations that cost taxpayers and 
consumers much more than software. The energy and tax dollars spent 
to pursue a competitive company has been a debacle. Self serving 
competitors and their legislators have made a mockery of our 
capitalist system.
    Put this to bed and work on things that matter-energy prices, 
like automotive gasoline for example- talk about collaborative price 
levels! There you have a monopoly of many, all propping up prices- 
definitely not supply and demand driven. I don't work for Microsoft 
nor do any of my relatives.
    Eric Dennis
    Bothell, WA



MTC-00009591

From: Joe Hegenbart
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please accept this e-mail as evidence of my strongest support 
for the ``Settlement'' that the DOJ has been able to reach with 
Microsoft. I have the greatest admiration for the Microsoft 
Corporation, its employees and its products (which are most 
innovative, practical and moat reasonably priced). I could never 
understand the DOJ's justification for, or their decision to 
litigate; however, I applaud the Settlement. Please move on to more 
important matters. Note also, I am so displeased that the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not accepted the settlement. I 
consider this to be a single issue in the next election.



MTC-00009592

From: Rob Lund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    First let me say that I am a committed user of BeOS for several 
reasons unique to the BeOS platform--usability, performance, 
elegance, etc. Most of these are personal preferences. Due to the 
tactics of Microsoft over the years though, I am even more of a

[[Page 25174]]

BeOS enthusiast. I am continually frustrated by Microsoft's 
strongarm tactics and feel they have pushed smaller companies like 
Be, Inc. out of the market unfairly. Therefore, I am part of a 
worldwide network that is working on getting the BeOS or equivalent 
back into the market place. However, there is no hope of success if 
the following issues aren't addressed, such as open Office file 
formats, Win32 APIs, making dual-boot options mandatory, etc. Thank 
you for your committment to seeing a fair and just resolution to the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. As a BeOS user, I feel it is my 
right as a consumer to use the operating system of my own choice, 
and I know that the DOJ's pursuit of a fair market will ensure the 
BeOS's existence in the future.
    Regards,
    Rob



MTC-00009593

From: Frank and Hettie Helder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:10pm
Subject: End Clinton Eara anti Trust actions.
    It is unfortunate that so much interference with the free market 
has occurred and wasted so much time, effort and money. Please do 
the right thing and bring it to an immediate end.
    Frank E. Heidler Sr.



MTC-00009594

From: Don (038) Barb Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:02pm
Subject: Anti- trust effort of Clinton Admin.
    Dear Justice Dept. of the USA:
    I would like the federal government to not continue persecuting 
our finest businesses such as Microsoft. They do a wonderful job of 
producing products that make us proud to be an American. We already 
have terrific trade deficits in competing with companies abroad in 
the technical areas so lets support our efforts on this side of the 
oceans...the USA! Thank you for your consideration of this view.
    Barbara R. Palmer



MTC-00009595

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, drop the whole suit and stop wasting gov. 
money. Can't understand this whole lawsuit, what happened to free 
enterprise?



MTC-00009596

From: Eric Benedict
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    This letter is concerning the proposed DOJ vs. Microsoft 
settlement. I am an electrical engineer with over 15 years of 
computer usage and experience including MS-DOS, Windows and UNIX/
Linux platforms. This experience includes usage, development and 
system adminstration tasks.
    I am greatly concerned and troubled about details of the 
proposed settlement. In particular, I am troubled by the large and 
numerous loopholes which are present in the settlement. In 
particular, Section III, Part J, Paragraph 2 greatly concerns me. 
This paragraph clearly allows Microsoft to set up several barriers 
to prevent a third party from obtaining the information which 
Microsoft is supposed to make available as part of the settlement. 
Microsoft only has to release the information if Microsoft 
determines that the third party ``meets reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft of certifying the authenticity 
and viability of its business''. It is quite simple to establish 
reasonable, objective standards which will exclude virtually any 
third party which Microsoft doesn't wish to disclose the settlement 
stipulated information to. Further, should such a third party exist, 
Microsoft can further impede this party by requiring that the party 
submit their code ``at its own expense ... to third party 
verification, approved by Microsoft''. Thus, should someone make it 
through the gauntlet of conditions stipulated by Microsoft to have a 
legitimate need, Microsoft can require that they release their code 
to a Microsoft approved tester. The are no controls over this third 
party tester, their relationship with Microsoft, etc. Microsoft can 
quite easily influence the 'testing fee' to be sufficiently out of 
the reach of all but the wealthiest entities. It also isn't clear 
that Microsoft won't be given access to the submitted code 
information which also would assist Microsoft by allowing them to 
review their competitor's source code.
    Furthermore, I am also troubled that third party middleware can 
be excluded from invocation if a Microsoft determined functionality 
is not present. The way the current settlement agreement reads to 
me, Microsoft can evaluate a third party program, determine a 
functionality which this program does not provide, arbitrarily 
decide that this functionality ``X'' is now ``required'' and then 
ship the Microsoft OS version which doesn't allow the third party's 
program to be launched. The third party then has to ask Microsoft 
why, Microsoft then responds that they were missing this newly 
required functionality ``X'' and that they need to provide it in 
order to be compatible. Meanwhile the third party has already 
``missed the boat'' and must wait until the next Microsoft release. 
Of course for the next release, Microsoft can ``innovate'' some more 
and determine a new functionality ``Y'' is now required (amazingly 
missing from the third party's program) and so yet again, the third 
party is effectively shut out from being included. This can continue 
for as long as Microsoft wishes (or until the third party is 
bankrupt) and so Microsoft can effectively determine what software 
is allowed and prevent any undesired competition.
    These (and the numerous other loop holes which are present) 
effectively allow Microsoft to continue business as usual, but now 
*legally*! This will effectively insulate Microsoft from future 
anti-trust action since they can point to the fact that this 
agreement allowed them to do those actions! Very good for Microsoft, 
but not for the consumer!
    I am also concerned that the settlement also only provides 
(nearly non-existant) remedies on future behavior and does not 
appear to contain any punishment for prior inappropriate actions. 
This appears to me akin to allowing a successful but convicted 
criminal (drug dealer, bank robber, inside trader) to keep all of 
their ill gotten gains and then telling them to try to be good in 
the future. Microsoft was determined to be guilty of breaking the 
law. Where is the punishment?
    In an ideal world, I would like to see some punitive measures 
incorporated into the settlement; however, the world isn't ideal. At 
the minimum, I would like to see some real restrictions (with out 
loopholes) on Microsoft's future conduct. Anything less makes me 
have real strong suspicions of a sell out to Microsoft and that our 
system of justice is a joke or at least bought and paid for by the 
highest bidder.
    Thank you.
    Eric Benedict
    175 Lakewood Gardens Lane
    Madison, WI 53704
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009597

From: RG Helms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
THERASTAT DATA CORPORATION
7512 EAST INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD, SUITE 103
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28227-9412
Phone: (704) 567-4228 ? Fax: (704) 567-8699
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three long years of litigation Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice have reached a settlement regarding the 
antitrust suit. I believe that this settlement will be both 
beneficial and fair not only to the industry as a whole, but also to 
Microsoft and the federal and state governments. However, for this 
settlement to be beneficial, it is necessary that it is actually 
implemented. After the comment period, I urge you to quickly enact 
the settlement for greater benefit of the slowing economy.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable and was arrived at after 
extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. Not only 
that, but a settlement such as this will ensure that the industry 
continues to deliver advanced technology to the market by fostering 
competition, which in turn fosters new ideas.
    This has gone on long enough. All of this action at the federal 
level must be stopped, so that Microsoft can go to product 
development, rather than going back to court. Thank you, and best 
wishes for the New Year.
    Sincerely,
    R.G. Helms
    Senior Developer/Programmer



MTC-00009598

From: Ours, Susanne

[[Page 25175]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to voice my opinion on this subject. I believe it is 
time to end this pursuit of Microsoft and end this silly law suit 
against them. Take the settlement and let Microsoft get back to 
doing what it is good at...making software. The government should 
leave businesses alone and stop trying to tinker with them. The 
business world works much better when government stays out.
    Thanks,
    Sue
    Susanne Ours
    Divisional Programmer
    Student Affairs/Taylor University
    [email protected]



MTC-00009599

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust settlement
104 Whispering Brooke Drive
Newtown Square, PA 19073
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    My hope is that this note will help convince you and your 
department to promote the acceptance of the Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement proposal. I realize that yousupport the settlement, but I 
want to emphasize the necessity of its promptenactment.
    I believe that the proposal is a workable compromise between the 
needs and desires of the parties involved. Microsoft will retain 
itscorporate integrity and continue to operate as it has before. The 
company will now have to open itself upto other companies??? 
software, and Microsoft will need to provide companies with 
mechanisms to promote non-Microsoft programs. Non-Microsoft software 
will be utilized in the Windows systems. New Windows systems will be 
specifically designed to accommodate others' software. In short, 
it???s a compromise that will benefit all parties in the long term.
    Please support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Pizzirani



MTC-00009600

From: Paula Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  l:37pm
    I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse!



MTC-00009601

From: R Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumers worldwide have benefited from Microsoft. It is in the 
best interest of consumers, such as myself, to end this case and 
proceed with settlement.



MTC-00009602

From: susan pizzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:52pm
    Shut down the case and let America's tech industry get gack to 
work.



MTC-00009603

From: Keith Hix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is more than fair on the DOJ's side. Only 
problem is the additional nine (9) states holding out.
    Thank you.
    Keith Hix
    Annex Systems Inc.
    308B West Millbrook Road
    Raleigh, NC 27609
    Phone 919-846-5406 Fax 919-870-9335
    E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00009604

From: jim(092)va7gpd(092)n7gpd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:57pm
Subject: punnisment
    microsoft will keep on doing what they have always done unless 
it is made unprofitable for them to crush and kill off any one that 
treathens them
    just look at the auto map pro program they bought out the 
company that produced and kill the program off because it was going 
to be a better product than what they were going to sell and it was 
cheaper and that is the way that they do business



MTC-00009605

From: Gary Keener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:59pm
Subject: Anti-trust Law Abuse
    We support ending the Clinton-era anti-trust law abuse!
    Julia & Gary Keener
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00009606

From: Tom Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement--a thoughtful, non-profane comment
    Sirs,
    I have been a customer and user of Microsoft's products for more 
than 16 years. During that time, I have observed them on many 
occasions do those things for which they have been found guilty. I 
am thrilled that the court has recognized the Microsoft abuses.
    I voted for president Bush and have the highest respect for 
Attorney General Ashcroft and his integrity, but since the Bush 
administration entered the picture it appears that the government 
has backed down on punishing Microsoft for its abuses.
    Evidence that Microsoft believes that this is the case can be 
seen in that they released WindowsXP with many many utilities 
bundled in the product. This is precisely the sort of thing for 
which they are being taken to task! Their bundling of Internet 
Explorer with the OS was clearly for the purpose of killing their 
competition, and it worked! Netscape has been ineffective for years. 
It is a non-issue for Microsoft today, as is Novell.
    How many more companies have died as a result of Microsoft's 
predatory tactics? For Microsoft, winning is not the objective. 
Killing their competition is their objective. Without sever 
punishment, how many other companies will die? Microsoft's predatory 
tactics have done in dozens of ``partners'' and technology 
suppliers. Microsoft has a long history of: Intentionally writing 
incompatibilities between their products and those of competitors 
(DR DOS and Windows 3.1):
    Acquiring their competitors, (Visio)
    Re-writing their competitors' tools, (Netscape)
    Stealing their competitors' tools, (Stac)
    Directly attacking the competition with incompatibility, FUD, 
and in some cases explicitly dishonest advertising. (Novell)
    Time does not permit me to list all of the quantitative abuses 
that Microsoft has undertaken, and the full scope of their 
destruction can probably never be known. They have become one of the 
most successful companies in the world by use of these tactics. In 
spite of the verdict of abuse of monopoly power, Microsoft shows no 
remorse for their actions and continues to this day to abuse their 
power. They are flaunting their capability to
    bundle products and attack competitors even while this decision 
is being considered!
    The only way that Microsoft can be convinced to change its ways 
is by radical intervention both in terms of its business practices 
and punitive measures. I am pleased that the terms of the agreement 
spell out that Microsoft must no longer abuse their customers, but 
the decision must go deeper, or the consumers will continue to 
suffer. To be sure, Microsoft has offered much to the US economy, 
and has shaped the consumer marketplace in huge ways. Computing 
today is far more advanced than it was, but are we better off with 
Microsoft than if it had never come into being? Microsoft's tactics 
are not innovative, but rather suppress innovation.
    In order to provide as equitable a result as possible, Microsoft 
must at a minimum be forced to split into multiple companies, and 
must pay substantive penalties for their abuses. They cannot restore 
Netscape to it's former position, but unless real penalties are 
assessed, (and I mean in terms of billions of dollars in CASH, not 
products) they will continue to harm the consumer and the economy.
    Talk of a punitive measure of $1B largely comprised of MS 
products is frightening. That would serve to further MS hegemony in 
the PC marketplace, and to suppress alternative technologies. This 
would occur while actually costing Microsoft very little.
    I make my living largely through implementation of Microsoft 
products. I would prefer not to, but since they own the vast 
majority of the marketplace, I have little choice. In spite of the 
fact that MS product implementation provides most of my income, I 
believe that Microsoft must be punished. Please do not settle for a 
mere slap on the wrist! Finding suitable punitive measures would 
allow for more innovation in the marketplace and will be beneficial 
in the long term for the US and our economy.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this message.

[[Page 25176]]

    Sincerely,
    Thomas R. Cooper
    106 Rawlings Road
    Gaithersburg, MD 20877
    (301)869-6499



MTC-00009607

From: Jeff Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I believe that the government has spent enough tax payers money 
and has caused enough money to be lost by owners of technology 
stocks and mutual funds to end this nonsense abuse of power. 
Microsoft was wrong in how they conducted business, but people knew 
it and have always had a choice of software to use. It may be 
preloaded, but you don't have to use it. This witch hunt for 
Microsoft is worst. What is the next business that conducts business 
in the US will get to big so the government will step in and break 
it up? The government is to big, break it up instead. Stop and let 
Microsoft resume business, capitalism to remain, and confidence in 
technology sector of our economy to resume.
    Jeffrey L Powers



MTC-00009608

From: Daphanie M. Mullins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:20pm
Subject: Fw: keep fighting Microsoft
Original Message
From: ``Henry Sharp'' [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 3:48 PM
Subject: keep fighting Microsoft
    Thanks you for not agreeing to the US proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Our government has let us down by caving in to 
Microsoft.
    I applaud your action to not accept the agreement and to fight 
on for strong penalties.
    Harriet Sharp
    1165 Harbor Hills Drive
    Santa Barbara, CA 93109
    805/966-7280



MTC-00009609

From: Jessie Conner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time for the Federal and State Government to 
settle the Microsoft case. I believe the current agreement is 
reasonable and fair given the results of the trial. This agreement 
will provide reasonable protection for the industry and still permit 
Microsoft to continue to improve it's products to benefit millions 
of America consumers.
    However, I believe key aspects of the government's case are 
flat-out wrong, such as the contention that Microsoft holds a 
monopoly over desktop operating systems. That ignores the resurgent 
Apple Macintosh and the emergence of new Unix-based competitors, 
like Linux. Americans can purchase an operating system that cost 
over a billion dollars to develop for $89, or they can get a less 
capable Linux OS free, or buy a MAC. There is no evidence of 
consumer harm and none was provide in the trial. I see the case 
being driven significantly by politics. More specifically political 
use of the DOJ for special interest (Microsoft's competitors).
    Consider Microsoft's competition, Mirosoft must conveince 
consumers that it's product at $89 dollars is better then it's 
competitor (Linux) at the cost of $0 (zero). How can Microsoft be 
considered a monoploy when it has this level of competition? Will 
the government be happy when a Chinese version of Linux dominates 
the desktop and tax revenue from hightech industries are lost. 
Please review this issue carefully as it affects the ability of our 
nation to compete in the world economy. Please don't undermind the 
freemarket and hard work of millions of American who invest in 
Microsoft and other great companies.
    Concerned American
    Jessie L Conner
    6550 Point Comfort Lane
    Charlotte, NC 28226



MTC-00009610

From: Michael Farnham, R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a huge organization and a de-facto monopoly. 
However in the technology business this is somewhat meaningless and 
they have traditionally produced some fantastic pieces of software. 
I work for an organization that sells and supports Microsoft 
products. One of our biggest vendors (Great Plains) was purchased by 
Microsoft. Since that has happened they have raised our fees and cut 
our margins. They have begun to charge for services that had been 
free. I think the real issue with Microsoft is their predatory 
business practices. I do not feel that the settlement will keep them 
from engaging in practices that stifle competition or innovation. 
The settlement appears to be a temporary fix that actually 
reinforces their hegemony and has no real staying power to enforce 
compliance.
    It appears that they have purchased the right amount of 
political influence and that the Department of Justice has sold us 
all out. Hope you all got a lot of money.
    R. Michael Farnham
    Business Microvar, Inc.
    Direct: (651) 746-1494
    Fax: (651)746-1495
    Cell: (612) 325-1993



MTC-00009611

From: Larry Streger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    WE SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT!!!
    Anne & Larry Streger
    1405 Kings Row
    Plainview, Texas 79072-9244
    #806-291-8601



MTC-00009612

From: Ruth Lykins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530l
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    I wish to express my support for the proposed agreement between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to 
allow access to various Windows features to computer manufacturers 
and has agreed to design future versions of Windows easier to 
install on non-Microsoft software. The government has established an 
oversight committee to ensure Microsoft compliance in the future. I 
believe this is more than enough for any firm.
    Bill Gates has worked long and hard to make Microsoft 
successful. A person should not be penalized for being successful. 
It is time to settle this matter and I believe this has been 
accomplished through the proposed agreement.
    I hope to see the settlement finalized soon and no more action 
taken against Microsoft. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth Lykins
    2425 Main Street
    Ashland, Ky 41102



MTC-00009613

From: Christine Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:41pm
Subject: I SUPPORT THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    AS A TAXPAYING CITIZEN OF THE GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, I 
SUPPORT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S SETTLEMENT OF THE MICROSOFT 
LAWSUIT. LET'S PUT AN END TO THE CLINTON ERA FORM OF ABUSE IN THE 
FREE MARKET PLACE.



MTC-00009614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Taxpayer Employee,
    I would like to make you aware of my strong feelings on the 
Microsoft case. I think it is a case that should be resolved quickly 
and fairly. I noticed that the stock market decline began about the 
time of the case, and I know Microsoft is a very important part of 
the US economy, especially in the area of future growth. I know that 
Microsoft has helped, not hurt, consumers, and has provided great 
stimulus to our national economy. As a taxpayer, citizen, and voter, 
I would like to see this matter resolved so that we can get our 
economy rolling again, which would help all Americans.
    Thanks for considering this. [I have no affiliation with 
Microsoft].
    Bert Brumett
    Shoreline, WA



MTC-00009615

From: Terry Scanlon
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW

[[Page 25177]]

Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft Corporation has accepted the U.S. government's finding 
that it engaged in anti-competitive practices in violation of the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. By accepting the terms of the ``Proposed 
Final Judgment'' the corporation signals its intent to end the 
litigation and settle this issue as quickly as possible. It is a 
mark of Microsoft's statesmanship and good sense that it has 
accepted the judgment and will abide by the law. The Court has made 
its decision and all must accept it.
    Incredibly, the states opposing this settlement want the Court 
to define future standards for engineering software in a competitive 
marketplace.
    They want Microsoft to give its source code to competing 
software developers so that competitors can write new applications 
that will work off Microsoft's operating system.
    They also want Microsoft to rewrite its operating system so that 
computer manufacturers can put onto Microsoft's system the programs 
of other companies, such as the Java program produced by Sun 
Microsystems. In other words, the states invite the Court to 
anticipate and remedy future and unproven anti-competitive actions 
by Microsoft even though the development and future uses of software 
cannot be predicted. The states' remedy-to force additional 
disclosures beyond those in the Proposed Final Judgment, which the 
federal government has determined are sufficient to curb the 
company's anti-competitive practices-confuses aiding the process of 
competition with aiding specific competitors.
    The technology of the information age is rapidly evolving. It is 
foolhardy for courts or policymakers to attempt to direct the future 
course of software applications. It is particularly inappropriate 
for courts to do this on the assumption that one company will act in 
bad faith and undertake anti-competitive practices in the future. 
This in effect is what the states advise the Court to do.
    Sincerely,
    Terrence Scanlon
    Chairman, Capital Research Center
    and
    Former Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission



MTC-00009616

From: Rafiki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:52pm
    Please end clinton era dealings, that draft dodger has hurt the 
entire country..



MTC-00009617

From: Barbara Uhrig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:53pm
Subject: Let Microsoft alone
    I was thrilled to find an address I could use to let you know 
that the Microsoft case is the silliest thing I have ever seen. In 
high school, we studied about breaking up monopolies, and I believed 
the line that monopolies stifle the market. This may be true in 
steel production, but not in the idea arena. It seems that all that 
happened is that Microsoft spent millions defending itself against 
the government which spent millions trying to break up the company. 
The Bell Telephone company was broken up. Friends had to move away 
after their jobs vanished. Now service (repairs) is not very good 
and even Ameritech has put on (twice) packages of services that I 
never ordered. I don't think that breaking up the telephone company 
facilitated the development of telephones, and I don't think that 
breaking up Microsoft will facilitate the improvement of computers.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara L. Uhrig
    8718 Jamaica Court
    Indianapolis, IN 46219-2505



MTC-00009618

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this e-mail to encourage the court to settle the 
Microsoft suit. I do not believe the public has been damaged by 
Microsoft's practices. Not being an attorney, I do not understand 
all the nuisances of the case, but being a private citizen it does 
seem to me this case is being fueled by Microsoft's competitors. I 
also will add I am writing this e-mail on an Apple computer. My 
concern the reason Microsoft is being singled out is because they 
have not played the political game as well as they might have. I 
find that a sad commentary on our justice system. In closing I would 
think it would behoove the justice system to investigate Enron where 
many have been seriously financially damaged.
    Thank you for reading my comments.
    Mary Bush



MTC-00009619

From: STEPHEN J BANNON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I totally disagree with the government. Microsoft did not do 
anything wrong and the law itself should be erased from the books on 
moral grounds. This is the best example of non-objective law that we 
have on the books today. In a free country you are free to do 
anything as long as you don't infringe on anyone rights which Bill 
Gates didn't do. Capitalism is not based on free competition, it is 
base on freedom i.e. the freedom to think of any idea and see if the 
market will buy it Therefore the Justice Department should be doing 
what it should have been doing all along protecting the rights of 
its citizens from the likes of bin laden not going after a true 
American like Bill Gates The justice Department should drop all 
charges and praise him from his sprit The people around the hate us 
for this sprit and they want to kill us for our ideas. Govverment 
just wants to muffle and hurt its citazens with this unjust law. It 
is a shame that in a country that upholds freedom as its basic tenet 
that a man can not do business as he pleases.
    Stephen Bannon
    Garden Grove Ca.



MTC-00009620

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:05pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settement
VICTORIA M. FORREST
P.O. Box 222
Botsford, Connecticut 06404
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a 16-year employee in the technology field and user of 
Microsoft products and services, I am happy to see that Microsoft 
will not be broken up by the recent antitrust settlement with the 
Department of Justice. In fact, I believe that the case never should 
have been brought against them in the first place.
    Over the last decade, Microsoft has done much for the IT 
industry and the American economy as a whole. They have created 
jobs, raised performance standards, and led innovation into the 21st 
century. While Microsoft should have been more open with some of its 
technology and systems, lawmakers and politicians have no right to 
penalize them for being the best. if anything, Microsoft should be 
applauded and given a degree of freedom to innovate.
    During our current economic crisis, I believe politicians and 
lawmakers should be looking out for the best interest of American 
public by facilitating growth and development in business and not 
hindering it. They need to put aside their political differences and 
allow Microsoft and the IT industry to focus on business. I 
sincerely hope that no further litigation is brought against 
Microsoft in the future.
    Thank you for your time.
    Victoria Forrest



MTC-00009622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:31pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think the ruling of the Court Of Appeals is a fair and just 
ruling and should STAND for the benefit of every person in our 
Country. Please lets end this thing.
    Sincerely,
    William H. Hopkins
    22113 Soliel Circle West
    Boca Raton, Fl. 33433



MTC-00009623

From: donaldjordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:35pm
Subject: microsoft lawsuit
    Why doesnt the goverment drop these charges against this 
company, seems there are more important issues that needs to be 
adressed at this time.
    Thank you.
    D. Jordan



MTC-00009624

From: Xia You
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25178]]

    I think this settlement between Microsoft and DOJ is very good 
for both the consumer and the national economy.
    Regards.



MTC-00009625

From: Bowen, James W
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
80 Candlelight Drive
Glastonbury, CT 06033
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft. The terms of the 
settlement seem fair and reasonable, and further litigation on the 
federal level must be ended to allow business to resume.
    Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft must make 
several significant changes in the way they handle business. The 
company must now allow its competitors to use interfaces from 
Windows products to develop more accessible and efficient 
applications, and cannot face retribution from Microsoft for doing 
so. A ``Technical Committee'' will ensure that this happens. This 
would appear to resolve the concerns raised by the litigants. With 
the many terms of the agreement, seeking further litigation will be 
a waste of time and money for not only the taxpayers but the 
government as well.
    Sincerely,
    James W. Bowen



MTC-00009626

From: James Robison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:47pm
Subject: Get off Microsoft
    Right after the Clinton JD went after Microsoft, stock prices 
began to go down the tubes. The reason was that investors could see 
that the federal government was playing favorites. And, if the JD 
could go after Microsoft to help out Sun, et al, who would be next? 
Lets get back to equal justice for all: drop the case entirely!
    James C. Robison
    Edenton, NC



MTC-00009627

From: James L. Niemann, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:50pm
Subject: End Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse now!
    I think it is high time to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse. 
I consider the Microsoft case simply a witch hunt by a bunch of 
computer illiterate government representatives. Computers are so 
much easier to use thanks to Bill Gates and Microsoft and anyone who 
does not want to use Microsoft products does not have to. You only 
have a monopoly when their are no options available, such as the 
United Sates Postal Service.
    Signed:
    James and Ruth Ann Niemann
    573 Huntleigh Ct.
    Farmington, MO 63640-2036
    (573) 701-0135



MTC-00009628

From: Pap, Victor III
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write to publicly express my opinion that Microsoft Corp. a.) 
did not have a monopoly but b.) that in the event it did have a 
monopoly, then the monopoly could only be an actual benefit to 
consumers. Finally, I strongly believe the legal actions of both the 
states and the companies are more harmful economically and against 
the notion of the free market, a principle on which this country is 
founded.
    If there was anything more I could do to support Microsoft, I 
would.
    Victor Pap III
    Press Secretary/Legislative Aide
    Representative George N. Peterson, Jr.
    House Minority Whip
    State House, Room 124
    Boston, MA 02133
    Tel. 617.722.2100



MTC-00009629

From: Pap, Victor III
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement II
    I also forgot to mention that I honestly believe the economic 
boom of the 90's had more to do with a universal windows platform on 
which technologies could build and compete with products than either 
the President or Congress, Democrats or Republicans. The 
government's suit on Microsoft may have also had a minor effect on 
the already declining profitability of tech companies' (I'm sure it 
didn't cause it, but it certainly did not help).
    Victor Pap III
    Press Secretary/Legislative Aide
    Representative George N. Peterson, Jr.
    House Minority Whip
    State House, Room 124
    Boston, MA 02133
    Tel. 617.722.2100



MTC-00009630

From: Festival Books
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  3:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement should NOT be approved. 
Microsoft obstructed and prevented fair and legal competition. The 
proposed settlement fails to achieve the necessary goal of a proper 
remedy. It fails to halt illegal conduct. It fails to promote 
competition in the industy. It fails to deprive Microsoft of its 
illegal gains.
    Dr. O.F. Rothchild



MTC-00009631

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/8/02  4:01pm
Subject: Too Many Chefs . . . Play Action
    Recently, a narrowcast cable commercial aired last evening on 
Monday Night Football featuring a young man picking up his early 
morning newspaper while a neighbor was also retrieving his. (I am 
usually up very early in my neighborhood, retrieving the newspaper 
before 6 AM in most cases.)
    The commercial has a deja vu theme to it as the event is 
presented twice during the 30 second spot. This commercial first 
aired after Sunday January 6, 2002. The young man first says, ``Hmm, 
. . . Sunday . . . going to be a good day'', as he looks at the 
cover of the large Sunday edition. The neighbor yells out, ``Too 
many chefs!'' The scene is repeated with the comments, ``Play 
Action!'', for the neighbor's line.
    The message is an explanation/reinforcement of the multiple 
``chefs'', ``so called leaders'', and others who are directing the 
multinational million dollar publicity campaign. Of course, as the 
sage adage goes, ``too many cooks spoil the broth''. The original 
recipe for Quaker Instant Stadium Organist called for this action 
(similar to the cloning techniques seen in the film ``The Boys From 
Brazil'':
    Scenario . . .
    Secret Government Plan--Dateline 1955 . . . height of the atomic 
cold war with the Soviet Union . . . Eisenhower/Nixon administration 
. . . Duck & Cover mentality . . . Fallout Shelters in shopping 
malls & churches . . . Walt Disney opens DisneyLand--Anaheim . . . 
can social engineering create replacements for our film and music 
stars?
    CAST
    Mother: Tennessee Virgin who stops running
    Father: Navy veteran who's hard work and blue collar Chicago 
connections help him climb social and economic ladders.
    Mother's unmarried spinster Aunt: Confined to her musical world 
spinning tunes from her Hammond Organ Novachord. Lives with mother 
and father in 1950s with extended family. Aunt is about 10 years 
older than mother, and a favorite friend.
    def. Tennessee Virgin . . . sister who can outrun her brother
    Take first born male child and move child through many homes, 
neighborhoods, & school districts including private schools. Use 
television social programming through broadcast advertising to 
entice parents to ``move up'' during the 1960s to larger homes in 
suburban Chicago. Keep father traveling majority of time in order to 
continue music preparations for family.
    Force oldest child to learn keyboard music via electronic organs 
& recorded music. Deny college eligible youth to attend college of 
his choice and educational level. Acquiesce local to community 
college education. Channel youth to entertain A.C. Nielsen 
executives in Northbrook, Illinois restaurant, designed to launch 
replacement for Chicago Blackhawks Hockey Team Stadium Pipe Organist 
upon retirement. Use private Germanic musical teacher to provide 
initial instruction and ``reference'' for A.C. Nielsen / Grove Inn 
first professional musical performance.
    Original Stadium musician performed from about 1930--1972 before 
first protege became a permanent replacement from 1972-1982. Finally 
promote best of all of the performing organist youth from the 
Chicago area to Blackhawk Stadium Organist, firing first

[[Page 25179]]

protege in 1982. There were probably 10 restaurants or night clubs 
developing talent for the Chicago Stadium, like minor league ball 
clubs & college sports programs. Now . . . I have already documented 
this in various ways . . . and it's really a weird recipe, but it's 
true!
    The chefs in Washington DC, Texas, California, Chicago, & 
Redmond, WA have been stalling & salting this recipe without 
providing me any interesting work, or rights to invest my money in 
areas of my interest . . . aviation, space technology, and personal 
fitness. This ``recipe'' has provided no performing musician 
interested in performing, and has only stalled justice.
    The ``creative'' Marino neighborhood was designed by one of the 
Aliso Viejo or Redmond chefs who wanted Buy.com to grow, forcing me 
into a hostile area. After choosing financial services with a 
competitor to the Bank of America and fighting an B of A executive 
decision to intentionally ruin my credit, I fought back.
    Later, the local chefs tried to spin a musical performance with 
the Crystal Cathedral and the Mighty Ducks Hockey Team . . . failing 
on both attempts, but causing me additional attacks, and assaults by 
those involved with the nefarious schemes. My recent PR campaign at 
NBC-Burbank once again brought international chefs who screwed with 
the recipe . . . fortunately I was in the studio audience when Jay 
Leno, Wolfgang Puck, & Tim Allen tried to make pizza together!
    In between all of the years of performances & musical 
instruction I have received an education in marketing, finance, 
aviation & space technology, electronic and digital circuit design, 
healthcare, legal, and fitness through my own personal interests. 
Millions of people have benefitted from my innovations, and 
thousands have personally purchased their computers, and information 
technology from me!
    The TD Waterhouse print and broadcast advertising commercials 
feature a retired executive relinquishing the ``decisions'' to their 
clients via the TD Waterhouse website with a comment, ``It's your 
investment choice''. To this very day, in 2002, other family members 
are ``controlling'' my earned assets to channel me once again to a 
musical performance, denying me my rights and earned income through 
royalties and investments illegally stolen from me. They have 
schemed with the Crystal Cathedral, Arrowhead Pond, Disney, and the 
Tonight Show . . . holding me back from a career I have enjoyed and 
contributed to from 1977 to 2002 in personal electronics, business 
and network computing systems, and advanced telecommunications.
    The assets are in the billions and some of the ``bigshots'' 
controlling them have ties to the US Government with bonds, notes, 
and business transactions. They just don't want to give up this 
control . . . but, people are replaced everyday . . . for instance . 
. . The ABC television network replaces their veteran executive, Stu 
Bloomberg with Susan Lyne and AOL Time Warner adjusts the 
``goodwill'' of the 2001 approved merger by $60,000,000,000. That's 
sixty billion dollars, folks . . . that's a sum that could probably 
purchase all of Irvine, California and parts of Newport Beach!
    Thanks for listening! Please help me obtain control of my assets 
in order for all of us to improve our Nation and other area of the 
world.
    Robert Remington



MTC-00009632

From: Bob Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:59am
Subject: input on Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to see the unjust action aganist Microsoft stoped!! 
Computer users have benefited from the Microsoft Windows. Bill Gates 
has helped the whole computer using world. The other companies were 
not looking to improve the computing invironment and create user-
friendly programs and got left behind with their approach the their 
operating systems and programs. If the Justice Department continues 
their unfouded attack on Mirosoft the computer users will be the 
loosers.
    Thanks for reading my opinion.
    Bob Jackson
    Irving, Texas



MTC-00009633

From: Barry Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my support for a settlement of the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. Before we continue to squander more 
taxpayer dollars, please be done with this process. I never believed 
the process, and still am angry at the use of countless government 
resources to hobble an American company involved in the high tech 
industry. Anti-trust protection is a valid responsibility of the 
DOJ, and yet it seems that the competitors were directing the case. 
Any reasonably astute American must know that in the environment in 
which Microsoft operates, a new and better OS, Browser, or other 
competitive softwear could be introduced tomorrow which will render 
Windows obsolete. As a taxpayer I would prefer that not one more 
dollar be spent on this waste of money.
    Barry D. Stephens
    37 Gray Lodge Road,
    Kittery, Maine, USA



MTC-00009634

From: Joyce Kerze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:13pm
Subject:
Joyce R. Kerze
4899 Golf Village Drive
Powell, Ohio 43065
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As an avid user of Microsoft products, I would like to express 
my opinion that legal action against Microsoft should stop. I think 
you have offered Microsoft a good settlement. I believe that the 
current settlement will suffice to allow computer manufacturers new 
rights to configure systems with access to Windows features.
    I urge you to continue on the course of the present settlement, 
and not get distracted by the critics trying get this settlement 
withdrawn. Thissettlement is fair, and will create more competition 
in the IT industry. This settlement requires Microsoft to open up 
its code to competitors, so that they will be able to create better 
software. Furthermore under this agreement a technical committee 
that includes a government official will watch over Microsoft full 
time. Your support of this settlement is necessary to bring it to 
fruition, and that is needed to bring this three-year-old case to an 
end.
    Once again I would like to urge you to put your full support 
behind the finalization of the settlement you have offered to the 
Microsoft Corporation. Don't let the anti Microsoft peanut gallery 
win the day.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Kerze



MTC-00009635

From: R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my support for the settlement between 
Microsoft and the United States.
    As a former attorney and professional mediator, I have faith in 
the mediation process and believe that the negotiators for the 
United States made the best deal they felt they could in light of 
continuing litigation. I do not believe it is in the public interest 
for the Judicial branch to second guess the the Executive Branch 
with respect to the terms of the settlement, and therefore encourage 
the court to approve the pending settlement.
    Very Truly Yours,
    R. Michael Kasperzak, Jr.
    Dispute Resolution Specialists



MTC-00009636

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs:
    I understand that this is the time for public comment on the 
Microsoft settlement. My feeling is that a settlement is long 
overdue and should be in favor of Microsoft. Our whole economy is 
dependent on free enterprise. Ever since this all began our economy 
has been in decline. It is time to get this over with and get back 
to the business of business. It is almost impossible to use a 
computer and not use a Microsoft product. This case has hurt my 
economic well being. Time to settle.
    Thank you,
    William N Mickelson



MTC-00009637

From: david tiry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:53pm
Subject: Sirs:
    Sirs:
    I would like to see an end to Clinton era anti trust abuses!!!!
    TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!

[[Page 25180]]

    Thanks,
    David Tiry



MTC-00009638

From: Sally Detloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  4:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    WOOD APPRECIATE A SWIFT END TO THE JUSTICE DEPT. ACTIONS AGAINST 
MICROSOFT. kEEP IN MIND THAT THE JUSTICE DEPTS ACTIONS, SINCE THE 
BEGINNING, HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARDS THE WELFARE OF A GROUP OF 
COMPANIES, RATHER THAN FOR THE WELFARE OF THE CONSUMER.
    SINCERELY,
    GERALD F. DETLOFF
    [email protected]



MTC-00009639

From: CA Cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:00pm
    Subject: I am a citizen who requests an end to the Anti-trust 
law abuse directed at Microsoft.
    There have been many jobs and much money generated by the works 
of the Microsoft Company and it is time to ``get back to business'' 
and quit the ``harping'' that began in the Clinton-era and persists 
now. Please stop it and move forward for the good of the Country and 
the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Betty J. Cobb
    Waco, Texas



MTC-00009640

From: Chuck DeSario
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:04pm
Subject: Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
    To whom this may concern,
    As an American tax payer, and business man. I would greatly 
appreciate the Justice Dept. ending this anti-trust suit with 
Microsoft. Simply put and in my opinion the action that the D.O.J. 
took against Microsoft during the Clinton administration has been 
counter productive, not only has this issue cost the American tax 
paying public, millions, if not billions of dollars in lost income 
and corporate and personal income tax it has virtually destroyed our 
electronics industry single handily.
    Please know that I am not pro monopoly, but I am a realist. 
Microsoft for all it's faults helps create a great economic base for 
this country. How you might ask does Microsoft contribute to the 
economy, simple.
    1. They employ a large number of employee's who earn incomes 
which are distributed locally and nationally. Taxes are extruded 
from their pay checks, which in-turn contribute to the needs of both 
state and federal governments.
    2. Microsoft's software programs are so cluttered with garbage, 
that the average computer requires huge amounts of memory, ( XP, as 
an example requires your computer to have at least 128mb of memory 
on board), just to install the program, i.e.: R & D, employees, 
income, income and corporate taxes, etc. from memory companies.
    3. Microsoft's programs also require larger capacity Hard 
Drives, which in-turn is great for our Hard Drive industry, (Maxtor, 
Seagate, Quantum, IBM.) i.e.: R & D, employees, income, income and 
corporate taxes, etc. Taxes are generated from both corporate, 
individual earnings, as well as taxes generated from the sale of the 
items at the retail level.
    4. Processors, Intel Processors. Microsoft's programs are so 
cluttered you have to have a faster processor just to wade through 
all the garbage, otherwise you'll be sitting for hours just waiting 
for your computer to pull up the smallest of projects. i.e.: R & D, 
employees, income, income and corporate federal and state taxes, 
etc.
    Bottom line, destroy, revamp, breakup Microsoft, and you destroy 
our computer industry. Yes, Microsoft may be a monopoly, WHO CARES! 
Millions, Billions of dollars, both income and tax dollars are being 
lost everyday you persist with this Anti--Trust law suit. Enough is 
Enough, lets get our economy back on track. Microsoft in it's own 
weird way has contributed to our economy for the last 10yrs. Please 
for the sake of the nation, cease in the pursuit of all law suites 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely
    Chuck DeSario
    Louisville, CO



MTC-00009641

From: Porter Cragin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12224 Northeast 130th Way
Kirkland, Washington 98034
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my opinion on the recent Microsoft 
antitrust case. After three years it is obvious that the settlement 
had a great deal of care put into it.
    Microsoft has been dealing with this issue for three years and 
the litigation appears to have stymied business throughout the 
computer industry. Pursuing further litigation could possibly bring 
an entire industry to its knees. This company has put out some 
outstanding products, and now stands to be punished for their 
innovative thinking. The dedication and efforts shown are what build 
this country. Do we really want to penalize them for doing a great 
job in there chosen field of endeavor?
    Let's not be the ones to slow down our own progress.
    Sincerely,
    Porter Cragin
    12224 NE 130th Way
    Kirkland, WA 98034
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009642

From: Nikil M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello I am a member of the community that suuports BeOS. I feel 
that Microsoft's tactics limited BeOS from competing in the market 
despite a product that was very competitive. As a rememdy I suggest 
that Microsoft immediately allow dual or triple boot options for 
computers from the large computer manufacturers like Dell and Compaq 
without any penalties. There should also be much more documentation 
on the win32 API so if a developer wishes to create a compatible yet 
superior product they may. Finally Microsoft should pay I think 
between 50 and 100 million dollars to either Be Inc or Palm for the 
damages their tactics cost to the companies. Nikil Mulakken



MTC-00009643

From: Phil Hall
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an Information Technology professional with several years of 
experience, I watched and read the news about the Microsoft trial 
with great anxiety. I know full well that if handled improperly the 
situation would destroy an existent company (Microsoft) for no 
reason, while at the same time elevating competitors for no reason 
as well.
    Microsoft is like no other company in the history of the world. 
To liken it to pre-antitrust AT&T, Standard Oil, Alcoa, etc. is a 
gross underestimation of Microsoft's importance and would do great 
injustice.
    I will freely admit that some actions taken by Microsoft have 
been potentially anticompetitive; however, if you examine the track 
records of the competition you will find them in a more stable 
environment now than the time before Microsoft's improper 
activities. Without exception, all the competition has benefited 
from the current situation, and the topic of harm to the consumer is 
nothing more than a smoke-screen.
    Look at what Microsoft has done with the Windows Operating 
System. It has brought the Internet to the masses in an easily 
understandable form, it has ``leveled the playing field'' for 
software developers and the home user, it has brought into play an 
entire industry that was non-existent prior to Windows 95 being made 
available for sale.
    Certainly, Microsoft has benefited, as is to be expected. But to 
claim that the consumer has been unduly harmed is foolish and 
outright wrong. If Microsoft is to be punished, let the punishment 
fit the crime. Dissolution is inappropriate, only a fine would be 
sufficient. A monetary penalty is the only correct solution. This 
coupled with a probationary oversight on business practices would 
definitely hinder Microsoft's alleged illegal business practices and 
would allow the US to recoup any losses from the investigation and 
would allow for a fostering of the market system to flourish.
    I would remind you that Windows is dominant in the marketplace, 
and to damage that would create undue chaos. It is safer, and wiser, 
for Microsoft to remain a single unit and to be penalized via 
monetary fine rather than to take action that in less than 5 years 
would be inconsequential. The field of Information Technology grows 
and changes at such a rate that any decision made now would seem 
foolhardy within 5 years.
    Make certain to understand that to promote competition for the 
mere sake of competition

[[Page 25181]]

can be detrimental to what is actually in the best interest of the 
people. The Law doesn't make that distinction.
    Thank you,
    Phil Hall
    1230 Dundee Avenue
    Waterloo, IA 50701



MTC-00009644

From: Ben Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:11pm
Subject: Clinton Era
    I would like to see the end of the Clinton era abuse of anti-
trust legislation and court action.
    Microsoft has provided jobs to multitudes of people and made 
millionaires of another group who started out as workers.
    Thank you,
    Sue & Ben Hughes
    Lindale, Texas



MTC-00009645

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: I am alarmed that the Microsoft case may be reopened. It 
seems to me that the litigation simply punished a company that 
innovated, created jobs and wealth, and was successful. I was happy 
to see the case settled and would not want that settlement derailed. 
I notice that since the DOJ began litigation against Microsoft, its 
stock price has declined. Is that what you call ``the public 
interest?'' My retirement mutual funds probably own Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Shayna Alterman



MTC-00009646

From: vera feingold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:16pm
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    To Bill Gates
    No good deed should go unpunished.
    If you and your Company would have failed, you would been 
entitled to tax breaks and other assistance from the government. 
Since you do not need any assistance from the Government, the 
government seeks revenge. Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat 
scorned.
    As a volunteer teacher for SeniorNet, I want to thank you for 
yoour generous on-ging contributions of software for the centers and 
for the teachers.
    Vera Feingold



MTC-00009647

From: zxxx xxx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if 
the following issues aren't addressed:
--open Office file formats,
--Win32 APIs,
-- make dual-boot options mandatory.
    P.S. Sorry for my english. I'm writing from Greece
    Regards
    Lambros S.



MTC-00009648

From: Paul Moncznik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is important for both the industry and the economy 
that this settlement quickly get passed. This a tough settlement, 
and a fair one for Microsoft, its competitors, and for consumers. 
And besides, how could anyone be against a settlement which provides 
computers for thousands of the country's neediest schools?



MTC-00009649

From: Ivory M Bassett-Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:32pm
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am extremely happy that this issue with Microsoft is being 
resolved. I was very pleased when the suit came about because of 
personal experiences trying to use other browsers, i.e. Netscape as 
well as IE.
    The MS os would shut down and I would have to manually shut down 
my pc. This was not only damaging my hard drive but was causing 
great frustration. I was investigating all potential OS (operating 
systems) but everyone of them lacked. I felt trapped unless I chose 
Apple. Which I did for my then college daughter. Nevertheless, she 
soon found it too cumbersome to convert and download the materials 
she needed for her studies and by her junior year in nursing she 
brought a unit that came with a Microsoft OS. I always felt trapped 
in the MS no-alternative bag. In fact I just purchased a new 
computer last Sept. 2001, it came with ME already loaded and I would 
receive an automatic XP upgrade when it came out in Oct. Without 
knowing anything about the XP I began to investigate its attributes 
and pits. I found out it literally has the potential to see who is 
using their software, who is sharing it (I personally believe when I 
buy something its mine and I should be able to do with it whatever I 
please--that includes giving it to whomever I please, using it as I 
please--I PAID FOR THAT PRIVILEGE.)and if need be shutting down your 
system. They have since sent me the software with no info on these 
ramifications only mildly informing ME, the consumer, of the 
enhancements. If I really want to get more out of it I guess I could 
by one of Microsofts XP learning books or software packages. I am 
still in a quandary as to whether or not to install this product.
    Anyway I am glad this issue has been bought out and has been 
resolved to some degree. I hope the consumers can now be given the 
opportunity to have a choice of products. As you can see Microsoft 
has given me one benefit I hold dear, that is HOTMAIL.
    Thank You
    Ivory Bishop



MTC-00009650

From: Graham--d
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs
    I am what I think is a `standard user' meaning I use Microsoft 
products for my work and at home. I work in a bank which has 
standardized on Microsoft products and from a user's perspective 
they work, they talk to each other and we rely on Microsoft to sort 
out problems of compatibility.
    Breaking up the company or charging massive fines is simply not 
right and will have a negative impact on a company that helps keep 
America ahead of the world. Can you imagine the French doing this? I 
think that sometimes we do not realize what we have here. The 
settlement in my view is totally fair and I question the motives of 
those seeking to overturn it.
    Apart from being a user of their products I have no involvement 
in the company and do not own any shares or have any financial 
interest in the ultimate decision.
    Graham Doubtfire
    [email protected]



MTC-00009651

From: B.L. Doern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  5:40pm
Subject: Drop it already!
    Microsoft is a big player in our economy. Please finish this 
case as soon as possible so that we can get it behind us and move on 
to economic recovery.
    BettyLou Doern
    Modesto, California



MTC-00009652

From: Becky Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust law



MTC-00009653

From: Helene (038) Ken Hickey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As provided in the Tunney Act, I wish to indicate my full 
support for the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    I have reviewed the documents relating to this settlement
    Kenneth T. Hickey
    58 Longmeadows Road
    Wilton, CT 068971-101



MTC-00009654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement is adequate. Please put 
this issue to rest so that we can move forward on other more 
pressing issues and matters confronting our nation. Microsoft is not 
the enemy! Thank you.



MTC-00009655

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has decent products at reasonable prices, that is why 
they are the largest software vendor. However they are not the only 
one. I can think of three other operating systems and a couple other 
office suites just off hand and I am not in the computer industry, 
there could easily be more that I am un aware of. Very often I can

[[Page 25182]]

find share ware or even free ware that does the job for me and use 
these types of programs all the time.
    I think it is a mistake to try to disassemble Microsoft. The 
goal of intergrating programs to work better together is the way we 
should be headed not tearing them down.
    E S Conrad, Jr.
    1400 Talisman Circle
    Virginia Beach, Va. 23464



MTC-00009656

From: Lawrence York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:25pm
Subject: Regarding the MSFT Settlement
    I am a Microsoft Business user, Portfolio Manager and Consumer. 
I strongly feel that it is time to get the Microsoft case settled 
and I believe the terms and conditions reached by the Federal 
Government are fair and reasonable. I believe that the hold-out 
states are politically motivated due to their tech constituencies 
who seek more to distract a successful competitor than than to see 
justice served.
    I think it is a disservice to the public to spend additional 
taxpayer money on this case and I think reaching a settlement will 
greatly improve the prospects for the tech sector. This in turn 
should benefit the government by helping the industry recover from 
its deep recession eventually returning it to profitability.
    A lot of time has elapsed. Microsoft and the Government have 
reached a settlement that strikes a balance for the public good. 
Please now, lets focus on rebuilding and growth not political agenda 
and distruction. America needs this now more than ever.
    Lawrence York
    Portfolio Manager,
    The WWW Funds



MTC-00009657

From: Jean Saylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the Microsoft Settlement is fair and just, and 
would urge you to ensure that it is not changed. I believe it is 
crucial for the future of the industry that Microsoft be allowed to 
continue their innovative work. I feel that it is particularly 
important for additional features to be integrated into the existing 
operating system. Any computer user can attest to the extensive 
compatibility problems which exist when trying to integrate software 
from various manufacturers. For many users, just the thought of 
having to install various pieces of software, whether or not from 
multiple manufacturers, is deterrent enough to prevent them from 
getting the most out of their computers, or even from attempting to 
use a computer. If computers are ever going to be useful to those of 
us in the general population who do not have extensive technical 
backgrounds, then simpler, integrated solutions are necessary. I 
believe Microsoft is one of the best at providing this. I would 
certainly like to see more companies also attempting to provide a 
fully-integrated solution, but prohibiting our leading company from 
participating is ludicrous. And certainly, your role should not be 
to punish success.
    Thank you for your consideration to this point of view.
    Jean Saylor



MTC-00009658

From: G. B.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:39pm
Subject: comment
    Dear Sr. or Madam:
    I am an electrical engineer and It is my opinion that in the US 
best interest Microsoft has to remaine strong and united but in the 
other hand I think the US Government has to regulate Microsoft 
activities because they really take advantage of there monopoly 
position and a good example is my last experience: I bought a new 
computer with Windows XP home edition and I connected it to my home 
LAN only to find out that this new version has no privacy, I can not 
put a password to any file, resource or carpet so I can not have my 
information available in any computer of my house and at the same 
time prevent my kids of seeing that information in other computer of 
the LAN.
    In previews versions of Windows (95, 98 and Millenium) this was 
possible so Microsoft took out some functions and now if you want 
those functions you have to buy the XP professional version (at a 
higher price, of course). To make things worst, if you assume that 
the new home version will have at least all the functions that the 
last one had (a good assumption because this is the case with 
manufacturers in a normal market and not in a monopoly) and buy it 
there is no upgrade to the professional version paying only the 
difference so if I want my privacy in my LAN I need to buy a XP 
professional as if I did not have the XP home edition.
    This is just one example of the kind of abuses that Microsoft 
Monopoly make and that is why I think that the US Government has to 
regulate Microsoft in a way that this kind of practices will be 
avoided.
    Many thanks for your attention.
    Gregorio Beitman



MTC-00009659

From: Ralph Sickinger (R2)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:51pm
Subject: Proposal for Resolution to United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement
    Dear Sir(s) or Madam(s):
    I respectfully submit the following proposal as a possible 
penalty against Microsoft: My proposal is quite simple: Microsoft 
should be compelled to release the complete source code for Windows 
98 to the public domain. This proposal has the following benefits:
    (1) It is simple and inexpensive to implement. It would be far 
less ``traumatic'' or difficult to implement than (for example) 
splitting up the company.
    (2) It would benefit the public: one of the most significant 
injuries to the consumer as a result of Microsoft's actions is the 
lack of stability in the Windows OS. By comparison, Linux, which is 
open source, is VERY stable, because there is a large developer 
community that works at fixing bugs that appear. The Windows 
community could benefit greatly from having an open-source version 
of the Windows OS available.
    (3) It would be reasonable: Windows 98 is now 3 year-old 
technology; it is significantly behind Windows 2000 and Windows XP 
in terms of it's development. Also, it is a major iteration behind 
Windows 2000/XP; as a result, any competitor desiring to compete 
against Microsoft, would not be able to compete directly against 
Windows without some significant effort. At the same time, Windows 
98 is still (just barely) current enough to not be worthless to the 
public.
    Microsoft has not had to focus on the consumer, or be responsive 
to the consumer, since it does not face any significant competition 
in the OS segment. A public domain version of Windows 98 (or a 
variation of the OS further developed by a corporation) would 
provide consumers with another choice for an operating system that 
could still run the current generation of Windows software packages.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Ralph P. Sickinger
    15735 Erwin Ct
    Bowie, MD 20716
    [email protected]



MTC-00009660

From: Randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  6:56pm
Subject: I want to end Clinton era Anti trust law abuse against 
Microsoft!
    The whole thing with Microsoft has been insane. Leave Microsoft 
alone, and get on with the business of running the country. If 
people want to compete with Microsoft, then they need to get their 
brains in gear!!! We want the handful of people who have pursued 
this to get on with life.
    Thanks
    Tracey Sigle
    Lincoln, NE



MTC-00009661

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@ inetgw,Ralph@essen...
Date: 1/8/02  7:00pm
Subject: 21st Century Civilization
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,[email protected]@i...



MTC-00009662

From: Eduard and Carol Prets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:05pm
Subject: Get off your ass and leave Microsoft alone
    At a time like this when everything is going to hell, why are 
you wasting your time and money chasing after a company like 
Microsoft. Microsoft's secret is not illegal. They have a product 
that works--it's that simple. Other companies products either don't 
work, or they are not easy to use.
    So, suck it up. Take a loss. You've wasted enough of our money. 
Tell all the other internet companies that are paying you that they 
need to get a life.
    Sincerely,
    A Tax Paying Citizen of Washington State

[[Page 25183]]



MTC-00009663

From: David Larman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: examples: open 
Office file formats, Win32 APIs and make dual-boot options 
mandatory.
    Regards,
    David Larman



MTC-00009664

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:14pm
Subject: Wal-Mart vs Kmart
    Dear DOJ:
    Rather than allow this endless pursuit of Microsoft whose 
products do NOT harm consumers, how about getting on Walmart's back 
for a change? Walmart has put hundreds of thousands of small vendors 
out of business, in addition to large chains like Caldor, Bradlee's, 
Jamesway, etc.! It looks like Kmart may be next!
    I recently visited our local Kmart; and I found more cashiers on 
duty than there were customers in the store! Today, I made a 
purchase of one item at our local Walmart; and I had to wait about 
20 minutes in a cashier's line because there were a multitude of 
customers and only about 5 cashiers on duty! The trick for Walmart 
seems to be this: After opening a new store, spoil your customers at 
first; then when they have been trained to frequent Walmart, lighten 
up on customer service! As a monopoly, you don't have to be good to 
your customers anymore! After all, the competition has for the most 
part gone out of business!
    I'm being forced more and more to shop at Walmart, as their 
competitors ``fade away!'' DOJ should send a few agents incognito to 
some of their stores; and verify or disprove my complaint.
    An intriguing observation: ``How May I Help You?'' is imprinted 
on the back of Walmart's employees' workjackets. Why on the back, I 
always wondered. I often find myself hurrying after one or another 
Walmart employee for help, as the ``How May I Help You?'' logo 
recedes rapidly into the distance, like a Doppler Effect! Racing 
after the offer of help, so to speak!
    I wish something can be done to protect the few competitors that 
still survive!
    Thank you,
    Nicholas S. Molinari
    31 Whitman Street
    Brick, NJ 08724-2448
    732-458-8485



MTC-00009665

From: William Stella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Department of Justice and U.S. District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: I am just a simple carpenter, (who 
also happens to be very close in age to Judge Kollar-Kotelly--I will 
be 58 soon and our world-perspective is likely to be fundamentally 
somewhat similar), but I have some very real concerns regarding the 
Microsoft lawsuits from both the federal DOJ and state AGs. 
Basically, I think that none of you are acting in the best interests 
of the vast majority of Americans. My deep feelings of patriotism--
and this is a very real patriotism issue--come from having served in 
the 7th Special Forces Group and the 82nd Airborne Division from 
1961 through 1964, AND my consequent understanding that ``all that 
is necessary for the forces of evil to prevail in the world is for 
enough good people to do nothing''. I actually suspect--especially 
in the situation regarding the various state AGs gathering together 
and `joining' in this legal action--that there are very strong 
questions about the constitutionality of said activity. 
Representatives from a number of states began to conspire and try to 
force the federal government to take certain kinds of actions in the 
past. A notable example was eventually thwarted by a guy--a 
President, if you will--named Abe Lincoln. I wrote a rather blunt 
letter to Judge Stanley Sporkin several years ago about the same 
basic issues involved with the DOJ, et al. Some of the cast-culprits 
from the competition have changed or been added, but their motives 
and behavior are just as scum-bag-greedy as ever! Here it is below, 
for your edification, entertainment and hopeful enlightenment:
    (Note: I no longer live at the address shown in the letter. My 
current address is: 14424 North Creek Drive %1126 Mill Creek, 
Washington 98012)

March 2,1995
U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin
The District Court for the District of Columbia
United States Court House
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
    Dear Judge Sporkin:
    I am just a simple carpenter.
    Perhaps you will help renew my faith in humanity and find it in 
your heart to take a little time to pay attention to a nobody like 
me. After all, you probably spend most of your day listening to 
lawyers--and I'll bet that my views are much more honest and fun. (I 
must admit that, thirty-some years ago, I gave only slightly more 
than a passing fancy to the notion that I might want to go to law 
school myself.) (I looked around at the company I'd be keeping and 
realized--your honor excepted, of course--that I might soon feel 
like Diogenes of Sinope--but picture him standing stark-naked on a 
miniscule ice floe floating in the Arctic Ocean in mid-December and 
having had F. Lee Bailey skip blithely across the water and r-r-r-r-
r-r-r-rip his lantern from his hand, then trying to cover the faint 
flicker of his tiny now-substituting candle flame in the midst of an 
horrendous, howling, horrible, hailing, raging, ravaging, roaring, 
fierce, ferocious, furious, snowing, sleeting, multifyingly savage 
storm!--rather than living his ideal, natural life of sitting in a 
tub and occasionally venturing-out, searching the daylight.) Whew! 
Dat be de long sentence. It's with considerable interest that I've 
been reading a great deal about your recent involvement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust maybe/maybe not settlement. In addition to 
actually working for a living--I eagerly await a brief lay-off 
ending work-call from my union, Carpenters' Local 131, at this very 
moment--I've used microcomputers, at home and in several workplace 
situations, since the early Eighties.
    And, I'm writing to you, Judge Sporkin, because I simply cannot 
believe that virtually all the press reports I've read have 
misquoted you and misunderstood you. (It is kinda nifty to read our 
local press folks. I am a Seattle Times subscriber and get exposed 
to excellent reporting from the likes of Steve Dunphy and Paul 
Andrews, fairly good reporting from Michele Matassa Flores--plus 
awful, inane, and inept garbage from our very own version of what 
can best be described as ``Clueless in Seattle'', O. Casey Corr. 
This nincompoop has just got to be the publisher's nephew or 
something!)
    I read Hard Drive back when it was hot off the presses. Most of 
the personal and business behavior described in the Wallace/Erickson 
book seems nasty. It also seems pretty typical. The authors indicate 
that Bill Gates does not possess even the most basic or fundamental 
sense of ethics--whether it's having sex ``with the wife of one of 
Osborne Computer's overseas executives'' or stealing trade secrets 
from guileless prospective acquisition partners who've told Gates, 
or his confederates, too much. It may be that some of those stories 
are actually true hey, stranger things have happened! It may be 
that, at worst, Bill Gates is essentially amoral. Or, at best, he 
may be brash, arrogant, slick, sneaky, heavy-handed, and business-
brutal. So fucking what? (Remember, I'm an unsophisticated 
tradesman. You will please excuse my lack of knowledge regarding 
proper judge-letter decorum. Throughout, I intend no disrespect to 
you or your institution.) (I must admit here that I would direct my 
personal admiration toward the likes of Arthur Ashe--I hope you've 
read his last book--rather than Bill Gates. And, perhaps, someday 
Gates will develop Ashe-like aspirations? Hope springs . . .)
    What's the point of all this corporation meddling/oversight? 
Whimpy-assed also-rans and potential once-weres from their own silly 
ignorance and stupidity? Is it to protect some What IS Microsoft's 
competition doing? You know, Judge, it's almost as though all these 
wonderful, mega-bucks, ersatz business `giants'--the CEOs at Apple, 
IBM, Motorola, Borland, Novell, and now, today, America Online, 
CompuServe, and Prodigy, decided to get together in a big circle and 
created some weird new-age ritual wherein they watched each other 
cut off their own balls! What a bunch of prissy little twits! Take a 
look at the marketplace. Really take a look. I mean, never mind 
those whining little suck-butts who have poor market savvy. Let me 
give you my own anecdotal example--it's pretty straight-forward:
    1. I recently ordered, on February 17th, a Micron P100PCI 
Millennia PC. Micron, also an exceptionally talented company, has 
some sort of an agreement with Microsoft which provides Micron with 
Microsoft Office Professional 4.3/Microsoft Bookshelf on CD-ROM to 
bundle with its high-end PCs. I like that. (I would be quite 
surprised to learn that

[[Page 25184]]

Micron is a Reback silent partner--quite surprised, indeed.) 
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please understand, that if I choose, I may 
completely ignore ALL the software on my new computer, write all my 
own code using a wide variety of computer languages and operating 
systems on different sectors of my one-gigabyte hard drive, and 
develop any utility or application programs I dream up. My machine 
is fundamentally nothing more than a mass of potentially incredibly 
well-coordinated electronic impulses, just chomping at the bit, 
waiting for me to provide it with lucid instructions. This machine 
makes no demands on me, but offers me the tacit agreement that it 
will dance all over itself with zero/one delightfulness once I give 
it the proper zeros and ones. Hence, GIGO. (And this garbage-in-
garbage-out concept could apply to lawsuits too--ya know what I 
mean, Verne?) We could get real anthropomorphic about it, but, it is 
just a fancy box of wires and wafers. So, what's left for me to do 
is to look around for some entity to take the aforementioned 
potential, and direct it better than I. N'est pas?
    2. If you'd followed the development of PC software and hardware 
more closely, you would understand that this is a company, 
Microsoft, which produces excellent products--at a very reasonable 
price, with exceptional features which enable users to make very 
efficient use of their time and energy. (You'll notice that I didn't 
say ``perfect'' products, or even the ``best'' products. We have yet 
to see those--and it may not be Microsoft providing them!
    3. Suppose I decide that I want to switch to Novell's 
PerfectOffice Professional software. I would run out to Egghead 
Software and buy it for $550. That's a lot of money. But, when you 
look at most businesses--even quite small home businesses--that 
amount of money isn't going to make or break you. And, now you'd own 
both sets of office software! (You could do the same thing with 
Lotus SmartSuite for $460.)
    4. You could buy an Apple computer with an entirely different 
operating system, along with its own pretty handy software. Millions 
have. Why haven't millions more?
    5. The number of software companies is growing remarkably fast, 
NOT SHRINKING--to a great extent because of Microsoft's enormous 
success and its continuing efforts to generate greater interest and 
involvement with personal computers. The old ``bandwagon effect:''
    6. Is the world rushing to IBM and their operating system, O/S 2 
Warp? Why not? Could you, Judge Stanley Sporkin, decide to write 
your very own operating system, market it, and make tons of moolah? 
You, if you really know what you're doing, bet your sweet behind you 
could! SO, WHERE'S THE MONOPOLY? WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
    And all this crap about ``vaporware'' and the ``smoking gun''. 
Gimme a break. Microsoft lawyers lied to you? Do lawyers lie? Do 
bears dump ordure in the woods? You see, it isn't just the knowledge 
that ALL software companies--and most hardware companies, like maybe 
IBM, (surely, in my humble opinion, one of lawyer Reback's clients), 
have been doing this ``vapor'' stuff for forty years or more. By the 
way, so have the car makers, appliance companies, chemical 
companies, etc.
    This is a very complex and challenging world into which you've 
fallen. The players inventors, developers, publishers, 
manufacturers, and customers--form a group unlike any you've ever 
imagined. The level of sophistication may be higher, especially that 
of the customers, than any other single societal element. And this 
fact is very important--even critical to you and your task. My hope 
is that you have some sort of ``warp-speed'' learning curve, since I 
don't believe, frankly, that you really know what's happening here. 
You have got to be damned sure that you are looking at victims.
    Hey, help me out here. Is it possible that you may be thinking 
about putting some Rehnquist-like gold bands around your robes or 
something? I mean, I've picked-up this thing and perused it for 
years, from inside and out, top and bottom, at every imagined angle. 
I've squinted at it with a tilt, a lilt, and felt its temperature in 
all sorts of weather--and, mixing metaphors with complete abandon, 
you still look like a wild-ass bull in a fragile china shop to me.
    Historically, the real damage done to society and our 
environments--both natural and competitive--has been visited upon us 
when large businesses or governmental agencies have colluded, not 
faced-off. (Oil companies, meat packers, railroads, the literally 
criminal behavior of General Motors and Standard Oil as they 
conspired to eliminate the trolley-car system in L.A., the Bay of 
Pigs fiasco, the Vietnam War, (I served in the 7th Special Forces 
Group and the 82d Abn. Div. from '61--'64, and have some first-hand 
knowledge of how and what our government did secretly--like Special 
Forces psych-warfare and sabotage teams operating, clandestinely, in 
North Vietnam during the late '50s and early `60s and the subsequent 
huge increase in manpower allocations following President Kennedy's 
visit to Fort Bragg and his viewing of our razzle-dazzle ``sneaky 
pete'' demonstrations--jet-pack-flying-soldiers bullshit and all. 
From your experience with the C.I.A. and the S.E.C., you understand 
the fundamental differences between groups-which-do-battle-amongst-
themselves and groups-which-secretly-manipulate,-collude,-and-
cooperate-whilst-publicly-portraying-themselves-as-rivals. The 
former may be rough all `round as they behave in classic Darwinian 
fashion-- providing more fit survivors. The latter gouges and rapes 
citizens and consumers. And denies all of us access to the better 
and best which life has to offer.
    I'm convinced that you are having much trouble in gaining a 
clear picture of the issues involved in this case. (Yeah, I know 
that sounds rather smart-ass of me. But just try to consider some of 
what I have to say, in an open-minded manner, then worry about tone 
later.) Part of your difficulty lies in your lack of exposure to, 
and genuine familiarity with, the use and history of PCs and their 
software. Hard Drive presents only a small portion of that history, 
and it has a very narrow view to boot. Sources are all around you.
    Scientific American has followed computers for many years now. 
The September '94 issue has an excellent article, ``Software's 
Chronic Crisis'', you will find quite valuable. In fact, Scientific 
American has computer-related articles in nearly every issue, 
including the current March, '95 and many of them deal with business 
and software together.
    And maybe give some thought to having a talk with people like 
George Fisher--who had a totally different approach to some of these 
same technology competition issues while he was the CEO at Motorola 
several years ago--and former Congressman, Secretary of Defense, 
White House Chief of Staff, and an accomplished businessman, Don 
Rumsfeld. They are just a couple of the sources available to you to 
get a realistic sense of the actual market forces at work.
    Lastly, I want to mention, in general, some of the global market 
factors involved. As you know, millions of dollars are stolen from 
many U.S. software companies every year. Software developers are 
using more and more foreign sources for their work all the time. You 
run the risk of, once again, killing another American golden-egg-
laying goose. If you want to drive all of Microsoft's operations, 
not just some of them, to India, Bulgaria, and who knows where--keep 
pounding away. A zippy little reality check shows that Gates could 
run his corporation from just about anywhere--all Microsoft 
facilities could be re-located to Halmahera, Jabalpur, or even 
Kumbukkan, whilst he and his gang of top bananas stroll the halls of 
their Puget Sound mansions, occasionally tapping a few keys in 
Microsoft Office Professional 4.3 to check-up on things.
    What's happened to the American television and electronics 
industry? Autos? Book publishing? The point is, if you try to gain 
power and fame by bludgeoning world-class American corporations like 
Microsoft--in the misguided belief that they have a monopoly--you 
may actually provide even more opportunities for far less competent, 
ethical, and competitive software providers--and end-up destroying 
the enormous good side of our business environment for American 
companies. Frankly, foreign companies love the way our courts stomp 
on our businesses. (I'm not talking about real concerns like health 
and safety rules--I mean the very methods you seem so upset about. 
The exclusive license agreements which build powerful ties between 
Microsoft and its partners, and even other trade so-called 
`questionable' practices.) Let the companies who complain and try to 
coerce the Justice Department, move their cause to civil courts with 
actual violations of law. Let `em make their case with better 
products and prices in the marketplace. Let `em go door-to-door, if 
necessary, with excellent products.
    A year ago today, I turned fifty. I read Mr. Ashe's book and 
felt terrific for it. Today, on my fifty-first birthday, you, you 
lucky dog, are the recipient of my efforts at trying to make a 
small, positive difference. It may surprise you to learn that I 
don't own Microsoft stock, but I know several carpenters who do--
they've done well and acted wisely. I hope you will too.
    Sincerely,
    William S. Stella
    8615 238th Street, S.W., G302

[[Page 25185]]

    Edmonds, Washington 98026
    (206) 775-0550
    P.S. Rest assured that I would certainly enjoy having the 
opportunity to meet you or talk with you at any time. If you ever 
visit the Seattle area, please give me a call and I'll treat you to 
Harry Nagamatsu's Atlantic Street Pizza--``Garlic Gulch'' for sure. 
Maybe Willy Windows will join us, and then you can really pummel 
him.
    P.P.S. Obviously, this is a personal letter. I don't represent 
anyone--not my union, Microsoft, the late and great Arthur Ashe--
except simple ol' me.
    C.C. Stephen H. Dunphy--Seattle Times Business Columnist Bill 
Gates--Microsoft Corporation



MTC-00009666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft Settlement. Glad to see an end to the 
Clinton era of anti trust lawsuits.
    Sincerely, Terry Burnett
    Phx, AZ.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009667

From: Bob (038) Caryl Horstmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:17pm
Subject: GOVT. SHAKEDOWN OF MICROSOFT
    DEAR WHO EVER AT JUSTICE DEPT;
    I BELIEVE THAT MICRO SOFT DOES NOT RATE A SHAKE DOWN BY THE 
GOVT. JUST BECAUSE MICROSOFT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLICK WILLY. THE 
REST OF THE WORLD IS WONDERING WHY WE SHAKE DOWN OUR BEST ACHIEVERS.
    ROBERT HORSTMEIER, 112 STANTON STREET, DAVIS ILLINOIS, 61019-
0183
    [email protected]



MTC-00009668

From: brede
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the States and the Justice Dept should leave Microsoft 
alone. What a bunch of envious second rate people you've become. 
Hatred of the good for being good is not an American ideal an 
longer.
    Eternal Vigilance,
    Lorelei Brede



MTC-00009669

From: Thomas LaRusso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:38pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THE REMEDY THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSED SHOULD BE SETTLED ON. NO 
FURTHER STATE ACTION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
    TOM LARUSSO



MTC-00009670

From: Dale Fester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: I support the settlement, even though I feel it is unfair 
to Microsoft. I feel that Microsoft has never been a problem for 
consumers. It is my belief that they have been tough competitors, 
but that is what free enterprise is all about. The Justice 
Department should never have taken the side of the losing 
competitors. I believe it was the DOJ, Sun Microsystems, Netscape, 
and the predudicial judge who were responsible for starting the 
economy into its downturn. I certainly don't thank you for that! The 
complaining states should be sent packing. All they are interested 
in is trying to get money from Microsoft, who has in no way hurt 
consumers. I thank Microsoft for an excellent product that they 
market for a fair price. If it hadn't been for Microsoft developing 
a universal software for us computer users, we would be in a lot of 
trouble trying to link across an innumberable variety of computer 
operating systems. Leave them alone. When I worked for a large 
aerospace company, we were always trying to beat the others and we 
had no love or compassion for them. That's the definition of free 
enterprise, which is based on survival of the best competitors.
    Dale Fester
    2916 South Fenton St.
    Denver, Colorado 80227
    Tel: 303-985-5678



MTC-00009671

From: Carol Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:50pm
Subject: microsoft anti-trust suit
TO: US Dept of Justice
From: Carol C. Adams
Atlanta, GA
    Please close the case against Microsoft and therefore end the 
abuse of our anti trust laws. Microsoft is a fine competative 
company that is successful and should be a model for other emerging 
companies.
    Yours truly,
    Carol Adams



MTC-00009672

From: cphatcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft trial has squandered taxpayers' dollars. It is 
high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, 
to be over. Competition should be in the marketplace not the 
courtroom. Competition means creating better goods and offering 
superior services to consumers. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. This whole mess is the result 
of the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsoft's 
competitors.
    Now that the federal government and nine states have finally 
reached a comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the 
reduced liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. It's time to 
put this to rest.
    This settlement is tough, but seems reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. I agree this settlement is good for them, the 
industry and the American economy. I support the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Clarence Hatcher
    3268 F 3/10 Road
    Clifton, CO 81520



MTC-00009673

From: Clark Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:52pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case
    There is no way DOJ can prove consumers are worse off due to 
Microsoft's actions. Maybe their competitors are worse off, but that 
is the nature of business. Personal computer use soared in this 
country due to standardization, and that standardization is due to 
the success of Microsoft's products. Please stop wasting our tax 
dollars with the pursuit of Microsoft, there are much better uses of 
these dollars than frivolous litigation.



MTC-00009674

From: Wanda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I support settling the Microsoft case. I think it would be in 
the best interests of the public to do so. I do think, however, that 
Bill Gates abused his company's position by creating software that 
requires everything to be built on it's base and holding smaller 
companies hostage by requiring them to use Microsoft's products in 
order to market their own.
    Wanda Simonson



MTC-00009675

From: rosalie mcGhie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:58pm
Subject: microsoft comment



MTC-00009676

From: Merle Steffenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm sure getting tired of reading and hearing about this! Let's 
quit wasting my tax money and dispose of this case. It looks like 
you're running interference for Microsoft's competitors (who, in 
many cases, probably wouldn't even exist if it weren't for 
Microsoft). Get it settled and get the holdout states in line. I'm 
from Iowa and I'm ashamed to see the AG trying to get into 
Microsoft's pockets. Get more from the Web.



MTC-00009677

From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the U S economy has suffered enough with this wasteful 
and foolish witchunt of a series of expensive lawsuits. Please stop 
harming our fragile economy. All this lawsuit mess is doing is 
creating a lot of wealth for a bunch of lawyers and for sure it is 
not reducing the cost of computing.



MTC-00009678

From: The Fosters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:13pm
Subject: GIVE UP ON microsoft
    The settlements already given are enough. Please DUMP the case 
as this is only left over

[[Page 25186]]

from Clinton years. Lets get back to helping industry.
    Gifford Foster



MTC-00009679

From: Walter B. Mills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Members of the Department of Justice:
    If Microsoft is satisfied with the present government judgement 
agreed to by nine state attorney generals, then I recommend ending 
future litigations. My personal view of this court case against 
Microsoft is: ``it never should have happened''! Microsoft 
``Windows'' isn't a finished product. The competitors who sought 
government protection are simply not competitive.
    The American Public is extremely fortunate that Microsoft 
invented ``Windows'' before a foreign nation developed it. Billions 
of dollars have flowed to America that otherwise could have been 
lost. Consumers of Microsoft products have excellent products at 
affordable prices thanks to competition the American way. I 
certainly do not wish to see Bill Gates and his company penalized 
for producing better products (a better mouse trap as the old saying 
goes).
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, I have not been overcharged 
as might happen with a monopoly. However, I have lost financially 
when Microsoft stock prices dropped severely due to this court case.
    Do not penalize Microsoft for success. Encourage the competition 
to do better! The government must not dictate to Microsoft how to 
design computer software. That would be a disaster and America would 
lose it's inventive edge!
    Respectfully,
    Walter B. Mills
    20070 Park Ridge Lane
    Sedro Woolley, WA 98284-7601
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00009680

From: Douglas Matheson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:20pm
Subject: judgement
    I happen to use Microsoft products for the Macintosh. I like 
them, but I can't stand the grassroots propaganda the MS uses to get 
their way. They were wrong in the way they conducted business for 
the last 15 years (at least). Don't let them give software, make 
them give real dollars and let the receivers decide where to spend 
it.
    Douglas W. Matheson Ph.D
    Dept. of Psychology
    University of the Pacific
    Stockton, CA USA



MTC-00009681

From: Billy Colwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 35
Roxton, Texas 75477
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to you today to express to you my 
sincere delight at the resolution of the long drawn out antitrust 
lawsuit filed against Microsoft. The resolution that was reached is 
a long overdue end to this debacle. Terms of this settlement are 
quite extensive and cover every parties needs, I believe. For the 
competitor software companies, there are provisions that give them 
access to the interface information so that their software can work 
more smoothly in Microsoft's Windows operating system. For the 
computer manufacturers, there are provisions that would prevent 
Microsoft from retaliating against them should they promote software 
from Microsoft's competitors. For the consumers, there are 
provisions that stimulate competition, which subsequently keeps 
prices down. There is no part that this settlement does not cover; 
it truly is all encompassing. There is no reason to litigate this 
further. A settlement has been reached, and its time to let this 
issue rest. I hope you will hear the opinion of people like me and 
agree to the settlement that was reached. I thank you for your time 
today.
    Sincerely,
    Billy Colwell



MTC-00009682

From: Richard Gillmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms proposed are tough but fair. It's time to settle this 
case and let American business get back to doing what it does best--
making the best products in the world.
    Richard Gillmann
    4150--187th Ave SE
    Issaquah, WA 98027 (USA)
    (425)641-5136
    http://www.nwlink.com/rxg/
    [email protected]
    -or-
    [email protected]



MTC-00009683

From: H. Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:43pm
Subject: Justice Department Members: I believe that it is past time 
to end the Clinton era Anti-trust law
    Justice Department Members: I believe that it is past time to 
end the Clinton era Anti-trust law abuse. It is a sad state of 
affairs when men and women aren't allowed to achieve what they are 
able to achieve legally because someone who isn't able to achieve as 
much yells``foul''. I'm tired of all these petty lawsuits that make 
lawyers wealthy and naturally competitive persons want to give up on 
the American dream of making wealth through hard work and ingenuity. 
This is the kind of thing that will bring America down if allowed to 
continue. PLEASE, PUT A STOP TO IT!
    Helen Hoffman
    4805 Serena Court.
    Carmichael, Ca. 95608-4240



MTC-00009684

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    Let me first note that I am a longtime Microsoft (MS) product 
user. I started with Apple, played with Unix and LINUX and naturally 
gravitated to the MS platform due to business needs and 
productivity.
    I preface this so as you know that when I am writing you today 
to voice my support for the settlement that was reached on November 
6, 2001, between MS and the government, you represent, my request 
and opinion is based not on pure emotion but on experience.
    Productivity is the issue. MS provides it. You (the court, 
politicians, special interests and unsuccessful competitors) have 
conspired to come against MS, each for your own reasons. If the 
competitors had as good a product as MS, they would be where MS is 
and not seeking to steal their profits or destroy MS by use of 
greedy and unethical lawyers. Netscape Navigator is a perfect 
example of this. If it wasn't prone to crashing, I would probably 
still be using Netscape today. I discontinued using it several years 
ago due to its unreliability factor.
    Lest you think me bias, may I acknowlege that I have and am 
still using several third party products (both software and 
hardware) on top of the MS platform without conflict or bugs. So, 
again, where is the problem? Where is this monopoly that MS is 
supposed to have? As an American consumer I can still pick and 
choose to acquire the software that I desire. Yes, I may have to 
initiate contact or search for a separate vender to acquire 
something made by MS but doesn't have the features that I desire, 
but you and I do that every day when we buy groceries or other 
products. One store may not have the cookies I like, so although 
they may have several different types of cookies on hand, I will 
make my purchases there and on the way home stop off at another 
store that has the cookies I like. And if the first store is giving 
away their cookies free with, say, the purchase of milk, fine, but 
I'm not prevented from going to the other store on my way home and 
buying the cookies I like. It just means that I now have two 
cookies. One I will eat and the other thrown away or given to the 
dog.
    I like many in America do not understand your ``Monopoly'' 
issue. It doesn't exist as far as I can see. What exists is 
political greed and lack of moral character. The politicians found 
that they could gain some extra cash (it would be called extortion 
or racketeering if it were done by the common man) and votes by 
pretending to support the little guy. It always looks good when you 
have stand up for the little guy and slap down the ``rich'' 
capitalist. It's the mentality we suffer with these days because the 
government has taught us all to be victims. How better to succeed, 
by everybody having nothing. We all share the same misery. It's 
killing America, not only business but also the social structure and 
fabric of this great country. The courts/lawyers jumped into the 
fray, because that's what vultures do. They prey on the vulnerable. 
Mr. Gates and MS were going about their business. Clinton and

[[Page 25187]]

his cronies were not getting political kick backs from this ingrate. 
Seagate was a friend and made huge contributions. They, however, 
were being beaten up in the marketplace by someone who was producing 
a better product and marketing it better. Clinton was having his own 
problems and saw an opportunity to deflect a little heat and pay 
back a political debt. And, Viola! Enter the courts.
    Besides who stands to profit. Look at the huge sums that are 
being collected by both the prosecution and defense attorneys. In 
the end, its the litigation attorneys who will walk away from this 
with their pockets full. The consumer will again suffer the 
disadvantage by paying more for less. MS will have to put the breaks 
on innovation, which in their industry may be the death knell.
    This case was political from the beginning. It's time to settle 
this thing. The offers have been made and accepted, except by a few 
greedy State Attorneys. Let them go back to their casinos and 
constituent for their State's needs. Leave Microsoft alone. They and 
we the consumer do not owe them a thing. Because they have increased 
their state's spending by 63% (according to America Legislative 
Exchange Council) over the decade of the 90's is not Microsoft's 
fault. These local politicians need to either cut spending or seek 
the deficiencies from their own constituencies. They should not seek 
to balance their budgets upon the back of MS. MS sells a good 
product. Do not punish them further with this injustice.
    You have exacted the penalty. Microsoft is willing to suffer the 
``penalty''. Let them get back to what they do. Making a quality 
product that puts productivity in American business which has put us 
ahead of the world. To further delay or seek greater damages is only 
to deter and prolong the injustice. The US court was out to find a 
scapegoat for a previous administration. That administration is now 
gone. The court is supposed to be a separate branch of the 
government, not a Brown Shirt for the Executive Branch. This case 
should have never come before the courts. Accept this settlement as 
is and clear your calendar for real crimes and criminals. Thank you 
for suffering through this diatribe, but may I state for the record 
that I support this settlement and believe it will have a broad 
positive impact on the state of our economy at the present time.
    Sincerely,
    Patric J. Jewison
    a registered voter from Billings, Montana



MTC-00009685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:04pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe microsoft has done nothing wrong to warrant punishment 
by DOJ. They have simply been fierce competitors in a business where 
there are many options for those using computers in areas where 
microsoft leads. They could lose their lead at any time. DOJ would 
do well to focus on real problems in this country and Bill Gates is 
not one of them.
    Nancy Prestopino



MTC-00009686

From: Cosmo S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I urge you to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse aimed at 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Cosmo Stallone



MTC-00009687

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please settle the Microsoft case. It is in the public interest 
to do so!!! If this continues only the lawyers will win.
    Grace Harris
    234 East Rocks Road
    Norwalk, CT 06851



MTC-00009688

From: John (038) Marty Trueblood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:34pm
Subject: Micro-soft Settlement
    I believe that the Anti-Trust Suit against Micro-soft should end 
now, today. Competition is necessary and should be the challenge, 
not the call to punish a successful company. It is time for all to 
let go of this unfair law suit and to let the other Companies get on 
with their business, develop better products and compete in the open 
market.
    John A. Trueblood
    8916 196 th. Street
    McAlpin, Florida 32062
    (386) 364-5316



MTC-00009689

From: Sandi Wilke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  9:36pm
    Please end the trial against Microsoft. The settlement is good. 
Let's get on with America and free enterprise. Let Americans spend 
their money the way they feel is best for them.
    Thank you.
    [email protected]



MTC-00009690

From: tomkeplar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  7:50pm
Subject: Drop the Microsoft case
    I believe the Justice Dept. should make the Microsoft case 
disappear. We are all free to choose our computer items. Let it be a 
thing of the past. There is so many terrible things that are going 
on, so look to the future. For one, the environmental groups, 
Sierra, Friends, Greens, etc are all trying to take over the plant, 
it is time to investigate their expensive offices and things they 
use their money for. I sort of believe they are UN-American.



MTC-00009692

From: Lynn Handy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not remove Java from Windows--there are many valuable 
websites that depend on this programming to provide their services. 
One such site is wetbusters.com, which provides a valuable source of 
support and info to children and adults with enuresis--I know of now 
other such site available, and as a health care provider, I need to 
be sure my patients can have ongoing access to this superb support 
site.
    Thank you.
    Lynn Handy, ARNP



MTC-00009693

From: Benjam(00ED)n Mu(00F1)oz Mateu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00009694

From: Lyn Monahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00009695

From: Charles Lyons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:48pm
Subject: Anti-trust NO!
    The time has come for DOJ to put a merciful end to the Clinton-
era attack on one of the most successful companies in the long 
history of the United States. In America's fight for survival of a 
free system of government against a system of terrorism, we need 
strong and innovative organizations dedicated to communicating the 
message of freedom to peoples around the world.
    Charles E. Lyons



MTC-00009696

From: slclark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Issue
    Good Morning--
    Please in the interests of the citizens of our great country 
drop the case against Microsoft. It has been dragging on for the 
last several years and is costing the tax payer many millions of 
dollars and really making a mess of the economy while making the 
lawyers very rich.
    Have a good day,
    (Mr & Mrs) Sharon L & Joyce M Clark
    CC:slclark



MTC-00009697

From: slclark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust Issue
    Good Morning--
    Please in the interests of the citizens of our great country 
drop the case against Microsoft. It has been dragging on for the 
last several years and is costing the tax payer many millions of 
dollars and really making a mess of the economy while making the 
lawyers very rich.
    Have a good day,
    (Mr & Mrs) Sharon L & Joyce M Clark
    CC:slclark



MTC-00009698

From: Francois Vincent

[[Page 25188]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed:
    1-MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in 
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in 
form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non-Windows OSs can 
read and write MS Office formats for flawless interaction with 
Windows users.
    2--The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    3--The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    4--The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-boot'' an 
alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in order to remedy 
the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.
    What Microsoft did and still does doesn't respect at all the 
freedom of expression that USA defends. People have the right to 
know that exists other Operating System than Windows and to choose 
which one is better.
    Thank you very much and I hope that justice will be made.
    Francois Vincent
    www.bug-mg.org



MTC-00009699

From: Sandy Alto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:23pm
Subject: PLEASE GET OFF MICROSOFT'S BACK!
    It's utterly insane that a bunch of state governments are 
allowed to play politics in this economy with technology companies. 
Microsoft is not a monopoly, creates outstanding products that have 
made my life incredibly better and easier, AND WILDLY ECONOMICAL.
    Technology advances must be made for our economy to grow. We 
need to leave Microsoft alone and let them compete in the 
marketplace as they have in the past. The best company that offers 
the best service will win, but with so many needs that have to be 
met, it's unlikely that one company will ever be able to be all 
things to all consumers.
    Stop trying to regulate this industry by penalizing Microsoft. 
Let the marketplace drive demand, service, and quality.
    Thank you,
    Sandra Alto
    19012 90th Pl. N.E.
    Bothell, WA 98011



MTC-00009700

From: Tom (038) Carolyn Burke
To: US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments
Date: 1/8/02  11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Settlement
    This is not punishment for breaking a law it is a reward. This 
``settlement'' is a terrible, terrible dis-service to the American 
people. This settlement allows microsoft to further their 
monopolistic ways in a most insidious way by allowing them greater 
access to our most valuable assets, our children. Further, it shows 
our children that breaking laws will be rewarded, rather than 
punished, by our highest courts. How can this be justice? How will 
our children be able to determine right from wrong when the wrong-
doers are rewarded and not truly punished? This is one of the worlds 
greatest travesties of justice of all times! Please there must be 
some way to control this great corporation that will show them that 
they too are subject to the rules and regulations of our great 
country.
    Carolyn Burke,
    [email protected]



MTC-00009701

From: Marion Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:26pm
Subject: stop abuse
    Please stop abusing a hard-working enterpreneur for his success!
    Marlene Parker
    1901 N. Thompson St.
    Conroe TX 77301-1241
    [email protected]
    936-441-7503



MTC-00009702

From: Tom O'Hern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02  11:35pm
Subject: A slap on the hand is not enough
    To whom it may concern,
    As a resident of Seattle I find my self very close to the root 
of the problem with the case of Microsoft. I am very involved in the 
computer industry and have for the last 15 years spent a good deal 
of time watching Microsoft. I have watched first hand in the 
industry how Microsoft has gained the upper hand not by producing a 
superior product but by buying out competitors and using the legal 
system to drain their rivals.
    In the computer industry there are many competing products. I 
have found though, that preferential treatment is given to Microsoft 
products. Why? Even though IT managers know that other products are 
superior/compatible/cheaper it would be insane to go any other route 
because Microsoft will put an end to that copetition sooner or later 
and anyone who has built a business on those other products will 
have to pay absurd amounts of money to switch over their entire 
division.
    You might think Microsoft would do well to incorporate those 
ideas in to their own products but they rarely do. They know what 
power they have and the corporation has become an entity of its own. 
It answers to stock holders and board members (who usually have 
their hands in MS's pockets more than the stockholders), not to 
ethical practices.
    I could go on but I am sure there are many others that will in 
my place. Many people are speaking out but with out *their* 
governments backing no justice will be served. Free trade must be 
established. A simple slap on Microsoft's hand will not achieve 
anything. At the least the company must be broken up. Please.
    Tom O'Hern
    [email protected]
    3415 NW 71st St.
    Seattle, WA 98117
    206-782-2820



MTC-00009703

From: Jon Fulfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jon Fulfer
    24 Indian Trail
    Lake Dallas, Texas 75065
    January 8, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am absolutely opposed to having the Microsoft Corporation 
broken up, and I am worried that if the litigation against them is 
carried any further, that is exactly what may happen. As you know, a 
resolution was finally reached last fall in regards to this issue. 
It was a resolution that should please all parties, and there is no 
reason to pursue this issue any further. The provisions within this 
settlement provide the smaller software companies with protection 
from Microsoft. They have pricing guarantees, retaliation 
protection, contractual restrictions, and the list goes on. The 
resolution as it now stands is as restrictive as can be without 
preventing competition, which is basic to our economy.
    The next step in further litigation can only be the breakup of 
one of the pioneers in the information technology era. This would 
absolutely devastating, and I do not want to see it happen. Do not 
alter the settlement; leave it as is.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Fulfer
    cc: Representative Richard Armey
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009704

From: Carlos Santellanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:01am
Subject: Justice please
    In late 1998 and early 1999, the United States District Court 
found that Microsoft had violated both sections 1 and 2 of the 
Sherman Act. 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,

[[Page 25189]]

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. 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.
End Note:
    The recent attempt by Microsoft to Hijack the penalty phase of 
this court proceedings shouldn't be allowed to stand a minute of 
contemplation, the remedy must be fair and blind to partisanship. By 
giving into the Microsoft remedy you would be basically giving the 
'Hen house to the wolves'. By Flooding the educational market with 
'FREE' Microsoft products would only serve to fatten an already fat 
giant. I beg you to please impose REAL punishment onto the REAL 
criminals of this case. Anything else would be punishing the 
unprotected and innocent buying public.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Santellanes
    Los Angeles, California
    [email protected]



MTC-00009705

From: Anatoly Volynets
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:00am
Subject: Monopoly hearts!
To:
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530;
From: Anatoly Volynets
1121 Village Dr. #9
Belmont, CA 94002
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I would like to make some comments on Microsoft case.
    1. I came in US from the former USSR. It is my understanding 
that communist country is that one of absolute monopoly in all areas 
of our life: culture, industry, media, education, etc. I feel ``by 
skin'' all humiliative impact of monopoly on ``small'' people. I 
also understand how monopoly slows down any progress in a society, 
how badly it affects science, technology, education, health care, 
everything. That is why US antitrust laws make me personally happy. 
It may sound funny, but I do feel this way. So my opinion in general 
is following: any monopoly must be fought and limited AS MUCH AS 
POSSIBLE for people, society and country sake.
    2. One may say that some monopolists do not behave badly, do not 
really harm public, are honest in their attitude toward people and 
state, produce goods and services of high quality, keep fair prices, 
create jobs, represent economic power of the country, etc. Maybe 
such monopolists do exist, but this is not about Microsoft 
Corporation. Whatever I know about their products and conduct is of 
the worst quality and impact possible. They always were the same as 
they are exposed in the movie ``Pirates of Silicon Valley''. 
Consider just one issue: security holes in Windows OS and Windows 
based applications caused and entirely responsible for the 
``crackerism'' as such. All world wide spread viruses exploit 
Windows weak points.
    3. I cannot understand how the proposed settlement may solve 
problems caused by Microsoft activities. So I came out with my own 
proposition.
    4. I am not a lawyer so my propositions may not be 100% 
legitimate, but I developed them based on my general knowledge. Once 
again, people, society and country always benefit from competition 
and suffer from monopoly. This is true in general terms and nothing 
tells us against this in particular Microsoft case.
    5. So I believe, the only considerable results in the case may 
be achieved by breaking Microsoft. I do not thing it will work if we 
break it in 2. OS developing company has no reason to compete with 
Application developing company. I thing it must be divided at least 
by 12:
2 OS developers,
2 Office application developers,
2 Internet application developers
2 Media application developers
2 ISP providers
2 ASP providers, so that the least competition occurred within each 
pair.
    I do not know if such action be enough regarding financial means 
accumulated by Microsoft so far.
    5. Looking into situation on market I think it would be 
necessary to apply additional taxation on all Windows related 
products and services, including education. Additional taxes should 
be used to create public funds to support competition, especially 
Free Software development.
    6. Addressing low quality of MS products and dangerous security 
issues, their products and services must be treated the same way as 
tobacco ones: No advertisement allowed; Each product and service 
must be labeled accordingly by independent experts, to let people 
know what they pay for.
    7. Addressing Microsoft's past monopoly power abuses, there must 
be heavy financial penalties applied, and collected funds to be used 
to support Free Software development.
    Sincerely,
    Anatoly Volynets



MTC-00009706

From: Charles Preacher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The suit should be settled. It should not have been filed in the 
first place. Bill Gates might be a nerd, but he is a genius nerd. 
The technological developments ue has masterminded are among the 
most significant the world has ever seen. Leave him and Microsoft 
alone.
    Charles B. Preacher



MTC-00009707

From: Doug Siebert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit my comments on the proposed settlement 
between the US DOJ and Microsoft. My name is Douglas Siebert, I am 
an independant consultant who does enterprise computing work, and 
have been a professional in the field for ten years. I hold a 
Masters in Computer Science in addition to an MBA from the 
University of Iowa. I feel that I have a much greater understanding 
of these matters than most people from a technical perspective, and 
have been in the field for a long enough time that I know the 
history behind all the various aspects of the case.
    I have followed the case with great interest as I have become 
more and more concerned over the years about Microsoft's domination 
of the industry, and its negative effects. The explosive growth of 
the industry and its resultant effect on the economy has allowed 
Microsoft's abuses to go on for far too long. I think a lot of 
people had a ``if it ain't broke don't fix it'' attitude about this. 
While I can understand that, I think the industry would even more 
strong, creative and dynamic if Microsoft did not hold such a 
totally dominant position over such a large and ever increasing 
portion of it.
    I feel the proposed settlement is totally inadequate. It does 
not punish Microsoft at all for its past abuses, nor is there any 
real change put into force to either prevent them from future abuses 
or make it more attractive financially or legally to avoid these 
abuses on its own. The US Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, and has stated the remedy for their illegal 
conduct in maintaining this monopoly must ``seek 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.''' As it does none of these 
things, it must be scrapped, and unless a far stronger deal can be 
struck, I feel the Court must direct the proceedings to continue.
    The DOJ has entered into deals with Microsoft before, and the 
result was a larger and stronger monopoly, with monopoly profits 
accorded to its top officers as a reward for their illegal and 
unethical behavior. This remedy will be equally ineffective, with 
loopholes to strengthen Microsoft's position riddling the terms. As 
a simple example, the requirement for Microsoft to disclose its APIs 
allows them an out for anything relating to security (in today's 
Internet, nearly anything can be determined to be security critical, 
and if not it can be altered so that it is) It also allows Microsoft 
to only disclose these APIs to companies whom Microsoft deems as 
having a ``viable business plan''. Nevermind

[[Page 25190]]

possible abuses of this in connection with for-profit companies 
having financial difficulties, it is an out for them in connection 
with their only real competition in the operating system market 
today, so-called ``open source'' systems such as Linux. Since their 
works are essentially in the public domain, Microsoft obviously 
crafted this requirement as a way to prevent giving the critical API 
information to what they feel is the biggest threat to their current 
monopoly.
    The nine states (including my home state of Iowa) who have 
intelligently declined to be a part of this one-sided settlement 
have proposed a somewhat modified version. While better, that 
version is still missing some key aspects of the picture. The 
requirement to make source code for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 
browser will obviously be a deal killer from Microsoft's 
perspective. The taking of their intellectual property is something 
the Court is likely to be loathe to do as well. But the worst thing 
about this is that it wouldn't really do anything substantial as far 
as changing the competitive landscape. It would certainly be more 
than a slap on the wrist to Microsoft, and something that may give 
them pause before they continue on to future abuses of their 
monopoly, but it is not particulary constructive.
    However, I do not wish to simply criticize the settlement. I do 
have some suggestions for a remedy I'd like to see considered in 
whole or in part. I have noted my reasoning behind these points as 
well.
    1) Disallow Microsoft from the purchase of or investment in any 
new companies. Microsoft has historically used its monopoly profits 
as a way of extending its monopoly by buying out the competition to 
kill it or integrate it into their product portfolios. They have 
lately been using strategic investments with their huge cash reserve 
to take equity positions in other companies, as a way to push their 
technology onto these companies when they otherwise would not have 
freely chosen it.
    2) Disallow Microsoft from entering into any new exclusive 
licensing deals with any companies or individuals for any of their 
products or intellectual property. This would prevent them from one 
of their favorite avenues for further abuses, since anything 
Microsoft licensed would still be available to others to license as 
well and use to compete fairly with Microsoft in the marketplace.
    3) Make all deals, contracts, etc. Microsoft enters into a 
matter of public record. In addition, any existing deals would have 
to be entered into the public record within a reasonable period of 
time after the final judgement is made. This would give Microsoft 
(or those who have entered into deals or contracts with them) an 
opportunity to extricate themselves from any deals they would rather 
not have publicly disclosed for any reason.
    4) Require Microsoft to disclose all APIs, network protocols, 
file formats, etc. for all its software in any market where they 
have more than 50% share. This would extend to any new markets where 
they currently don't have 50% share if they achieve it during the 
lifetime of the settlement's terms. These APIs would be made freely 
available in the public domain with no restriction on their use. All 
required information must be available before any product using them 
is available for retail sale or for preinstallation by its OEM 
partners. In addition, any changes to these APIs caused by changes 
to its software due to patches, fixes, service packs and such would 
also need to be disclosed prior to the release of said fixes. The 
only exception would be for critical security fixes, due to the 
timeliness requirement for these fixes, that Microsoft be allowed 
two weeks after the release of these fixes before disclosure is 
required. This is the biggest change as far as potentially restoring 
competition to the marketplace. Armed with the ability to 
interoperate with Microsoft software in a 100% compatible way, 
competition would spring up in many places, both from commercial 
competitors as well as ``open source'' freely available programs. 
The marketplace could freely choose based on features, price, 
support, etc. without the current worries that Microsoft will make 
changes that will render the software inoperable with Microsoft's 
overnight. Microsoft's huge size and vast army of employees would 
still give them a sizeable advantage, but if nothing else, having to 
compete fairly would cause Microsoft to put its resources back 
towards giving consumers what they want, rather than what Microsoft 
requires in order to insure the continuation of its monopoly.
    This solution would be far superior to the nine states' solution 
of forcing Microsoft to put their intellectual property in the 
public domain (in the form of the source code to their Internet 
Explorer browser) since it would create competition across the board 
(end user operating systems, server operating systems, Office suite, 
Internet browser) rather than possibly only in a narrowly targeted 
area. It would also avoid setting a precedent the Court would 
probably rather not set. Microsoft would have a much harder time 
arguing against the unfairness of a solution that merely puts its 
competition on the same footing as them versus the taking of their 
property.
    Finally, I would like to suggest that the proposed settlement's 
terms for the ``compliance committee'' are woefully inadequate. I do 
not believe that Microsoft should have any say in the membership of 
this committee. Instead, Microsoft should be required to provide 
some of the staffing for this committee so they can expedite the 
process of locating and securing necessary documents, information, 
and access to Microsoft personnel. The committee will have their 
hands full monitoring Microsoft's compliance, even if they are not 
deliberately obstructed along the way. Having one committee member 
coming from Microsoft and another that Microsoft would have to agree 
on almost guarantees attempted abuses by Microsoft with attempts to 
obstruct the committee's ability to function effectively in its 
role.
    I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 
contribute my thoughts on this, and I hope my comments do receive 
serious consideration. I realize that you will probably receive many 
thousands of comments on this proposed settlement, and even after 
discarding those that are incoherent, profane, or obviously cut-and-
pasted from prepared propaganda from one side or the other you will 
still have a large number to read and comprehend. I hope that the 
time I have taken in investigating this case and collecting and 
writing my thoughts will be rewarded.
    Douglas Siebert
    712 Rundell St
    Iowa City, IA 52240
    Douglas Siebert [email protected]



MTC-00009708

From: Ralph Kemperdick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:53am
Subject: Microsoft settelment



MTC-00009709

From: Yaka St.Aise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, as a longtime IT professional, I had many opportunities 
to witness and/or be affected by Microsoft peculiar business 
practices. It seems of the utmost importance to many players in the 
IT industry, as well as for the public interest, that whatever 
settlement is offered to Microsoft by the DoJ and the government 
strongly emphasizes on remedies to what is the worst effect of 
Microsoft strong-arm methods, based on its monopoly, namely: 
preventing competition and creativity.
    Be Inc. is one of the better examples of how companies that 
offer any innovative products on markets under Microsoft influence 
are both vulnerable and actively endangered and often put out of 
business.
    BeOS is a good example of the danger Microsoft presents for 
competition and innovation, for it was one of the few commercial 
attempts on the ground of Microsoft flagship product, and was led as 
well as could be.
    Microsoft monopoly is not a question anymore, since the DoJ 
established it, and it would be cause for no alarm if Microsoft owed 
said monopoly to its hability to offer better, cheaper products to 
the market.
    But the fact is, it isn't the case, MS products are of lesser 
value than many competing products, and the company also leverages 
its dominant position to overprice its products. Furthermore, MS 
practices tend to harm innovation and competition by spending more 
time and money at hampering competitors than actually develop new/
better products and technologies. Every new technology from other 
companies that blips on MS radar is either outright bought (often 
with the sole intent of preventing its success, and no plans to ever 
bring it to the market) or actively discouraged to exist out of MS 
influence.
    So what is needed now, is to acknowledge the fact that while one 
of free market's bigger strength is to foster progress and 
innovation through competition, Microsoft has become so powerful 
that it now has the weight to negate this strength, and can stop 
free market top play its role in the consumer electronics industry.

[[Page 25191]]

    Since Microsoft has the power to force its rules to apply to the 
industry as a whole, there is little choice but acknowledge it and 
turn a de-facto standard into a standard : make Microsoft products 
public!
--Microsoft can retain the property of the Windows code and 
technology, but it should be made so that third-party companies can 
create products Microsoft compatible with or without Microsoft 
approval.
--License agreements between Microsoft and users, Microsoft and 
resellers or manufacturers should be revised and controlled in the 
perspective of fairness.
--Public standards and generally non Microsoft-owned standards 
Microsoft claims to be compliant with should be enforced.
--De-facto standards, like Microsoft Office file formats should be 
documented and published.
--In the same fashion, source code for dominant technologies from 
Microsoft should be published and documented (it doesn't prevent 
Microsoft from retaining property of said source code), so to ensure 
third party manufacturers and developers can design compatible 
products without depending on Microsoft ``goodwill''. This would 
also help smaller company to gain rights on ``borrowed'' software...
--All Windows APIs and low-level subsystems should be documented as 
well as technologies such as DirectX. The best way to ensure such 
documentation is kept full and up to date would be to separate some 
software divisions of Microsoft from the core company, as spinoffs, 
and have them gain knowledge of the documentation via a third party 
organization (funded by Microsoft on a congress-sized allocation?), 
comprizing industry actors as well as government experts.
--Give the highest attention to Microsoft business practices in the 
future and realistically adapt fines and financial penalties to the 
profits of Microsoft (at some point in the Netscape case, penalties 
applied to Microsoft where of one million dollars when profits for 
the same period wre of eleven million, which led one Microsoft 
executive to state Microsoft can afford it.)
    Below is an example relation of how the OEM license and other 
common business practices of Microsoft can in fact hamper innovation 
and competition.
    Be Inc is the maker of BeOS, a desktop operating system that 
runs on the same personal computers that Windows does.
    Be Inc. is going out of business just now, because of Microsoft 
``innovation-fostering'' business practices.
    There is an initiative led by BeOS users to bring back the BeOS 
to the market, as a non-profit software, which tells enough about 
the quality of the product.
    Yet, this initiative has no hope of success if Microsoft is left 
free to conduce anti-competitive business practices as it did up to 
this point.
    Let me summarize how Microsoft did prevent BeOS from gaining 
foot on the market and eventually drove out of business a company 
whose products were of undisputed great value. BeOS, like BSD or 
Linux can be installed on a given computer alongside with others 
operating systems, giving the user the ability to decide what system 
to run at the time it starts his/her machine.
    Since Microsoft doesn't built said computers, one would assume 
that it's out of MS hands to prevent any reseller or OEM to sell 
computers ready to run with more than one system installed. The fact 
is, Microsoft can do just that, and took the necessary steps to make 
sure nothing like BeOS can actually reach the mainstream user.
    Microsoft licensing model for its software prevents computers 
manufacturers and resellers from installing a non Microsoft boot 
manager on computers shipping with an OEM licensed copy of Windows. 
The boot manager is the piece of software that allows the user to 
select his/her operating system of choice among those installed on 
the computer at startup type. MS boot manager is obviously not 
designed to accommodate non-MS operating systems...
    With margins on personal computers averaging in the 6-12% range, 
a difference of a couple hundred dollars on pricing can be the 
difference between selling for a profit and selling at loss, which 
makes the OEM license mandatory if one wants to sell computers 
including Windows. The OEM license allows manufacturers to get any 
version of Windows for next-to-nothing compared to the cost of a 
stand alone copy of the same software (even at bulk rates). By 
virtues of a market dominance reaching to monopoly, not including 
Microsoft Windows in your computers is not an option for most 
manufacturers.
    Furthermore, while the OEM licenses are supposed to be granted 
on a per-product basis, it is an established fact that Microsoft 
threatened some manufacturers to refuse this license unless they do 
ship Windows on every of their machines. That leaves the 
manufacturer/reseller with little options. Either go the Windows-
only way, or sell at loss or non-competitive prices. Simple as that.
    Since BeOS, contrary to Linux or BSD is the product of a private 
company, it depends on the company revenues to exist. Those 
revenues, in turn, are based on sales of the operating system and 
deals with hardware manufacturers.
    For an operating system to gain momentum, it has to be able to 
accommodate hardware and applications. Here again, Microsoft proved 
able to discourage some software and hardware manufacturers to 
support BeOS, less they lose the ``goodwill'' of Microsoft. In the 
end, there is no point in developing software or hardware for an 
operating system only a few use, unless this platform can gain 
momentum and you grow with it, in the hope of becoming a big player.
    And only a few, those who were willing and able to install 
another system on their computers by themselves, in a market where 
every element of the food chain is led to believe and forced to act 
as if nothing could exist unless endorsed by Microsoft, did actually 
experience how a better, cheaper product may look and feel like.
    Best viewed with your glasses.



MTC-00009710

From: Ed A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a computer consultant and programmer for well over 
ten years. In that time, I have seen Microsoft become increasingly 
more arrogant and unconcerned for the benefit of its customer base, 
including consumers and developers.
    Instead of competing fairly with its competition, Microsoft has 
attempted to use its dominance to force other companies out of 
business. An example being Netscape Corporation. While Netscape was 
an early innovator in the graphical web browser, Microsoft decided 
that it needed to dominate the web browser market. Netscape sold 
their Navigator browser for a nominal fee while Microsoft developed 
Internet Explorer much after Netscape became the most popular choice 
in browsers. Instead of fairly competing with Netscape pricing, 
Microsoft gave away their Internet Explorer browser free of charge 
with the apparent intention of destroying its competitor's paying 
customer base, thus causing serious financial difficulty for 
Netscape. This had a detrimental effect for both the consumer and 
developer. The consumer was left with no viable choices in a web 
browser. Microsoft's intention was to eventually control the 
Internet and its related services first by making Internet Explorer 
the primary way and only way of accessing the World Wide Web. 
Developers experienced problems with Microsoft's non-adherence to 
the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards. Creating web pages 
was now becoming a frustrating effort, since much of the standard 
coding was not compatible with Microsoft's browser. This was also a 
detriment to the consumer, since it made it difficult or impossible 
to access certain web sites. As the dominance of Internet Explorer 
increased, many developers started creating web pages based on 
Microsoft's non-standard. The result being that anyone using a 
browser other than Microsoft's Internet Explorer was not able to 
even access certain web sites.
    A related situation is currently occurring with the new 
Microsoft XBox game system. I have read that Microsoft looses 
approximately $100 for each XBox system they sell. They are 
essentially selling at a lose to establish a dominance in this field 
with the intention of eventually driving out their competition.
    I've seen instances where Microsoft has attempted to discredit a 
competitor's existing product with the intention of replacing that 
product with their own not yet developed or perfected inferior 
alternative. An example being Sun Microsystem's Java programming 
language. Microsoft saw that Java had the emerging capability to 
become an important language for developing the next generation of 
Internet and consumer electronic software applications. Their 
response to this was their ActiveX development environment. Due to 
blatant security oversights and security problems with ActiveX, Java 
became the more popular choice and ActiveX faded away. Microsoft 
then attempted to subvert the Java language by creating their own 
non-

[[Page 25192]]

standard or unauthorized extensions to the Java language. Their 
intention was to ``splinter'' the Java language into many non 
compatible versions and essentially dilute its effectiveness as 
defacto standard. Since Microsoft now has a dominance with their 
browser, the idea was to get the developer to use the Microsoft 
unauthorized version of Java for web applications in an attempt to 
subvert the Sun Microsystem's version. Even though Microsoft had no 
alternative to Java at the time, they attempted to destroy its 
usefulness and future potential to the consumer. Microsoft is 
currently attempting to promote their new .NET development 
environment as an alternative to the Java based applications and 
related Sun Microsystems solutions. Their .NET however, is not yet 
past the beta or testing stages, but Microsoft has been promoting it 
for well over a year. Again, their intention is to use their market 
dominance to convince corporate customers to adopt their nonexistent 
``solution'' over a competitor's mature alternative. This has the 
effect of creating a ``let's wait for Microsoft'' mentality in those 
responsible for corporate IT spending. The result hurts both 
Microsoft's competition and the consumer because innovative 
solutions and projects are postponed. An even more serious problem 
is occurring regarding Microsoft's lack of quality control and 
security within their server, email and browser products. There have 
been numerous reports in the press of very serious security problems 
in Microsoft products that could easily allow a computer system 
using these products to be accessed by unauthorized individuals that 
can destroy corporate, government and military data and even take 
total control of a computer system remotely. Microsoft's desire to 
increase profits by releasing potentially dangerous software that is 
not ready for public use, has obvious negative consequences to our 
economy and public safety.
    It is my opinion that Microsoft needs to be kept from 
controlling the industry, and appropriate remedies must be imposed 
by the court to prevent these anti-competitive and illegal 
activities from occurring in the future.
    Edward M. Arszyla
    Manager
    NECOM, LLC
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009711

From: Anthony D. Minkoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
INTRODUCTION
    My name is Anthony D. Minkoff. I am a professional software 
engineer. I am not a direct party to this lawsuit, nor do I have any 
business relationships with any party to this lawsuit, except as a 
customer. I do use Microsoft software in my home and in my work, and 
my job consists of developing application software that runs on 
Microsoft's ``Windows'' family of operating systems.
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
    I claim no expertise in relevant legal or economic issues. My 
only claims to expertise in relevant technical issues are those that 
are described above? that I am a professional developer of software 
applications for Microsoft operating systems and a user of Microsoft 
products. My interest in the case follows from the same 
considerations, and from the fact that I am a citizen of the United 
States of America. I'll briefly describe my personal opinion of the 
proposed settlement, and then offer a proposal of my own for 
consideration.
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
DUBIOUS EFFECTIVENESS
    One concern that I have is that the proposed settlement would be 
ineffectual in curbing future monopolistic behavior by Microsoft. 
This concern has been expressed by others who are undoubtedly more 
knowledgeable and eloquent than I, so I recommend that the reader 
refer to other available comments and briefs for detailed analysis 
of this point. I mention it merely to convey that I share the 
concern.
LACK OF PUNITIVE PROVISIONS
    Another concern I have is the apparent lack of any punitive 
provisions in the settlement. As I have stated, I am not 
knowledgeable of the legal issues, and don't know whether the law 
calls for punitive remedies, but as a consumer and a citizen I am 
concerned about their absence. It seems to me that, when laws have 
been violated, it is essential that the remedies do not leave the 
violator better off for having committed the violation. The remedy 
must either prevent the violator enjoying the benefits of the 
transgressions already committed, or impose punishments that exceed 
the benefits.
    In this case, it has been found that Microsoft's current 
monopoly power is at least partly a result of past monopolistic 
abuses. So, even assuming that the proposed settlement would 
successfully prevent future monopolistic abuses by Microsoft, it 
seems insufficient. I think it's also necessary that Microsoft be 
punished for, or denied the benefits of, the abuses that it has 
already committed.
A PROPOSAL
    The proposal that I am about to describe would, I believe, 
protect the interests of consumers and competitors, while at the 
same time protecting Microsoft's rights to innovate, to compete, to 
profit according to the value of its production, and even to 
continue to dominate the industry. I will describe the proposal, and 
then describe why I believe it would be beneficial to consumers and 
competitors while protecting for Microsoft the legitimate benefits 
of its production. Despite my expressed concerns about the lack of 
punitive provisions in the existing settlement, this proposal is not 
punitive in intent. The harm to Microsoft would be moderate, and 
would consist essentially of fostering competition where Microsoft 
has historically enjoyed a lack of competition. I would like the 
parties to consider the ideas contained in this proposal, and 
consider incorporating them into a revised settlement. I would like 
the court to consider the ideas contained in this proposal when 
fashioning court-ordered remedies.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
    The proposal is that, in areas in which Microsoft has been found 
to have abused monopoly power, its software come under a ``Delayed 
Open Source License'' (``DOSL'') . The relevant areas certainly 
include operating systems, internet browsers, and Microsoft's 
``Office'' software, and possibly others as well.
    In a DOSL, software would become open source four years from its 
date of publication.\1\ For example, ``Windows NT 4, .... Windows 
98,'' and earlier versions of Windows would become open source 
immediately; ``Windows 2000'' some time in late 2003 or early 2004; 
``Windows Millennium Edition'' in 2004; ``Windows XP'' in 2005; and 
future versions of Windows four years from the dates of their 
initial publication.
    When a product becomes open source under this rule, its source 
code (including internal documentation, test plans, etc.) would be 
made available to the public for free or for nominal cost.\2\ Under 
the terms of the DOSL, other parties would be permitted to create 
and publish derivative works; any such derivative works would also 
fall under DOSL? that is, four years from the publication of the 
derivative work, the derivative work becomes open source, etc.
HOW CUSTOMERS AND COMPETITORS BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSAL
    Microsoft currently enjoys barriers to competition that can be 
conservatively described as enormous, and fairly described as 
insurmountable.
    There is a vast library of software available that runs on 
Windows operating systems. (I have participated in the development 
of a number of such applications myself.) Many web sites are 
compatible only with Microsoft's ``Internet Explorer'' browser, and 
many are compatible only with browsers running on Windows.
    A similar phenomenon affects ``wetware''. Millions of 
technicians have expertise in diagnosing, maintaining, and repairing 
systems running Windows or other Microsoft software. Developers have 
experience developing software to run on Microsoft's operating 
systems and developing web sites to work well with Microsoft's 
browsers. Hundreds of millions of users worldwide have experience 
using Microsoft software.
    Only Microsoft is in any position to take advantage of all the 
software and expertise that has been created around Microsoft's 
products. This is the ``positive feedback loop'' that is partly 
described in the Findings of Fact.
    As part of a remedy for the monopolistic behavior, therefore, we 
want to give potential competitors a chance to enter that loop. The 
ability to base development on older versions of Windows (or 
Internet Explorer, Office, etc.) creates that possibility. It will 
make it possible to develop software that can take advantage of 
third-party products that work with Microsoft products, of 
technicians' expertise with Microsoft products, and of users' 
experience with Microsoft products.
    When other parties have an opportunity to enter the loop, 
Microsoft will be unable to wield its exclusive position as a 
weapon. For example, one of the abuses found in this case is 
Microsoft's threat to devastate Apple by refusing to continue to 
develop Office for Apple's ``Mac OS'' operating system. Under this 
proposal, Apple would be able to

[[Page 25193]]

respond to such a threat by continuing to develop Office itself, 
basing its own development on the source code of ``Office 98''\3\. 
The existence of this viable alternative for Apple would prevent 
Microsoft from exacting draconian terms as a condition of the 
continued development of Office for Mac OS. It would also protect 
Apple in the event that Microsoft's continued development of Office 
for Mac OS is of poor quality.
    Customers would benefit directly from this increased 
competition, since competing offerings would increase customer 
choice. Furthermore, if a third party develops a competing version 
of a Microsoft product with features that prove popular, Microsoft 
will have an opportunity to incorporate similar features into future 
versions of its own offerings, potentially leading to better quality 
products from Microsoft.
    Other customer benefits of open source software have been 
extensively discussed, and I refer the reader to http://
www.opensource.org for papers on this topic.
HOW THE PROPOSAL PROTECTS MICROSOFT'S RIGHT TO PROFIT FROM ITS 
PRODUCTION
    An important quality of any remedy is fairness to Microsoft, and 
this proposal is fair. Consider, as an example, Windows XP, which 
Microsoft advertises as a dramatic improvement over earlier versions 
of Windows. For the sake of this discussion, we assume that 
Microsoft's claim in this regard is accurate.
    Since Windows XP is a dramatic improvement over earlier versions 
of Windows, demand for it should withstand the open source release 
of Windows NT 4 and Windows 98. A free copy of Windows NT 4 or 
Windows 98 is not an effective substitute for Windows XP. A third-
party developer may be able to use the Windows NT 4 source code as a 
basis from which to develop its own operating system to compete with 
Windows XP, or may wait for Windows 2000 to be become open source 
and use that as the basis for development. However, it took 
Microsoft two years to develop Windows XP from Windows 2000, despite 
employing the very individuals who had created Windows 2000 in the 
first place and who therefore understood its source code and 
architecture better than anyone. (Starting from Windows NT 4, it 
took more than five years to develop Windows XP.) Presumably, a 
competing developer, beginning at a similar starting point after the 
publication of Windows 2000's source code, would require a similar 
amount of time to develop a product capable of competing in the 
market against Windows XP. By that time, given the historical rate 
of development of operating systems, Microsoft will have released a 
successor to Windows XP, and perhaps even a second successor. If the 
successor is a significant improvement over Windows XP, then the 
successor should enjoy success in the marketplace against a 
competing product that has only just become able to compete with XP. 
As another example, consider the possibility, as described above, of 
Apple creating its own version of Office based on the source code 
from Office 98. Apple's offering in this regard would be four years 
behind what Microsoft is able to develop, so it Would clearly be in 
Apple's interests to negotiate for continued development of the 
software by Microsoft. Apple would resort to developing its own 
version only if (1) it is unable to negotiate fair terms with 
Microsoft, (2) Microsoft fails to demonstrate a commitment to 
quality in continued development of Office, or (3) Apple simply 
feels that it can do a much better job than Microsoft despite 
Microsoft's four-year head start. In any case, so long as Microsoft 
continues to develop and sell Office for Mac OS; so long as it 
continues to add value to the product, Apple's competing version 
shouldn't be much of a threat to Microsoft's version.
    This same line of reasoning applies to all of the product areas 
under consideration. As long as Microsoft continues to add value to 
its products, it will be able to continue selling current products, 
even while old versions of the products are available for free. As 
long as it continues to develop these improvements with reasonable 
efficiency, a four-year developmental head start will ensure 
Microsoft's ability to stay ahead of competing developers and to 
continue to dominate the industry.
    However, a remedy incorporating the ideas of this proposal would 
weaken Microsoft's ability to dominate the industry simply by virtue 
of exclusive compatibility with the technology and knowledge that 
others have built around Microsoft software. That is, Microsoft 
won't be able to depend on its monopolistic position to lock out 
competition altogether. While Microsoft would undoubtedly feel 
harmed by this, it is clearly not undue harm. It is fair, and 
consistent with the intent of the antitrust laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOTE1: I assume a four-year delay for the purpose of this 
discussion; while a remedy could provide for a delay of different 
extent, I believe that a three- or four-year deal is optimal. I 
leave open the question of whether a ``public beta'' qualifies as 
publication. I also leave open the challenge of constructing 
provisions to ensure that Microsoft can not circumvent of the 
determination of a ``publication'' date by, for example, making the 
software available only to members of certain private organizations 
that between them happen to include just about anybody who would 
want to join. Other enforcement provisions would include escrow of 
the source code to ensure that Microsoft doesn't somehow ``lose'' it 
before publication.
    NOTE2: Special provisions may be made for parts of the code 
related to strong cryptography. Such parts would be made available 
only to citizens of the U.S. I understand that it is a violation of 
federal law to export strong cryptography capabilities or to make it 
available to foreign nationals. There may be other special cases as 
well, but nothing that would prevent the code as a whole from being 
used to build the target software or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
    NOTE3: Apple does produce a business productivity software 
suite, called ``AppleWorks,'' which in some ways does compete with 
Microsoft's Office. However, this is not quite a substitute for 
Office. For one thing, it is a less expensive, less featured product 
than Office, and targeted at a different class of customer. (In this 
way, it is more comparable to Microsoft's ``Works'' software than to 
Office.) AppleWorks can not be used to work with Office documents 
directly. (It is possible to use a ``converter'' to translate Office 
documents to AppleWorks documents and vice versa, so long as the 
documents don't use features that are unique to one product or the 
other. This is a less-than-ideal solution when one needs to exchange 
documents with Office users.) Finally, simply because it is a 
different product, it is not possible for AppleWorks to take 
advantage of all the existing ``wetware'' built around Office. 
Whether or not AppleWorks is inherently comparable to Office, it is 
not Office, and therefore suffers from ``network effects'' in an 
Office-dominated world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00009712

From: Ed A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009713

From: ARTHUR HUPP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:17am
Subject: E-Mail Settlement
    Enough is Enough!!!!! Let's let Mircosoft get on with being a 
successful company and quit wasting the taxpayers money!!!!
    Art Hupp



MTC-00009714

From: Randy Williams 10
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dept. of Justice:
    I find it strange that the dept. of Justice is asking for public 
opinion to consider the Microsoft settlement. I thought the law was 
the law, not mob rule. Microsoft has done this world more good than 
any other business that comes to mind. The Liberal attacks against 
there success was uncalled for,and I expect better from this 
administration.
    An American Patriot.
    Randy Williams
    521 Sandal Ct.
    Altamonte Springs
    Fl. 32714



MTC-00009715

From: sue ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:23am
Subject: END CLINTON ERA ABUSE
    END THE ABUSE CLINTON ERA CREATED. LET AMERICA AND AMERICAN 
COMPANIES DO THEIR THING. STAY OUT OF WHERE WE DON'T BELONG. GATES 
HAS DONE MANY WONDERFUL THINGS FOR AMERICA. SPEND YOUR TIME AND 
EFFORT GOING AFTER THE REAL LAW BREAKERS.. STOP CLINTON ABUSE.
    THANKS
    SUE RYAN



MTC-00009716

From: Sherry Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:42am
Subject: end anti-trust law abuse
    Briefly--and to the point--end the anti-trust law abuse that 
began during Clinton's ``reign''. It's a new era, let's remove the 
taint of past mistakes and start over.
    PS91,
    Sherry Roberts



MTC-00009717

From: DeBois Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Morning,
    I am writing you concerning the Microsoft Settlement and the law 
(officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public comment period 
between now and January 28th. I say it's high time that this 
ridiculous litigation nonsense by nine dissenting states be stopped. 
The settlement that was reached between the USDOJ and nine states 
clearly is fair to all parties concerned. I think it's high time to 
close these issues against Microsoft and move on.
    If you need further information from me, please feel free to e-
mail me.
    Thank you,
    Dean DeBois



MTC-00009718

From: Michael Kuncaitis Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:02am
Subject: microsoft setlement
    I say hurray for free enterprise. Yes, there are problems--no 
matter what you do. It is time we considered also the good people 
and companies do, not just the bad.
    I AM SO SICK OF JEALOUS, GET YOUR OWN COMPANY, PEOPLE WHO CANNOT 
STAND TO SEE OTHERS WIN AND SUCCEED.
    BILL GATES IS VERY RICH AND I THINK HE DID GREAT (AND DID SOME 
WRONG MISTAKES). I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM NO MATTER WHAT OFFICE HE RAN 
FOR--BECAUSE HE CAN GET THE JOB DONE AND DONE!
    GIVE HIM A PARADE AND LEAVE HIM ALONE. COMPETITION IS GREAT..
    Thanks,
    Mike K.

[[Page 25194]]



MTC-00009719

From: Charles Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that the nine renagade states are not able to unduly 
influence the Federal Settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft is a 
great company that tries to serve its customers. Microsoft should 
obey antitrust law where it is reasonably interpreted. I believe 
Microsoft helps its customers, including me, and gives them products 
that are a good value.
    Thank You
    Charles Stout



MTC-00009720

From: Dane Vertefay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice Representative,
    The short opinion-- Yes, I feel that the settlement is in the 
best interest of the American people and that it is fair. Please 
finalize this issue by the current terms. Further--I believe that 
bringing closure to this issue through reasonable terms is the right 
thing for the consumers and our economy, and I am happy to see an 
end to this dispute. It is understandable that some of the large 
corporate competitors will push their states to continue this issue, 
but I feel that finalizing this issue under the terms set forth is 
the best for the consumers and businesses as well.
    I believe that the standardization of my computer desktop 
programs has helped my company communicate internally with our four 
offices and even more importantly with my customers and suppliers as 
well. The fact that a standard platform for the desktop happened 
through the 1980's & '90's and has significantly contributed to the 
growth of many industries is the primary benefit, the fact that that 
company is called ``Microsoft'' is by the consumers choice from the 
products available at the time those decisions were originally made.
    Note--I have used computers since 1981(Apple) switched to IBM 
Compatible with Microsoft in the early '90's (24 Gateway PC's 
currently) and feel that I understand the issue very well, although 
I did not see all the case evidence presented by either side.
    Thank you for taking the time to ``hear'' my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Dane Vertefeuille
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00009721

From: Pybus, Keith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/9/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
18 Brookside Lane
Vernon Rockville, Connecticut 06066
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my opinion and to also go on record 
about the proposed settlement to the antitrust suit between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am pleased that a 
settlement has been reached, and I am glad that both sides made out 
well.
    The settlement is fair and reasonable to all parties involved, 
even though some of the restrictions are too harsh on Microsoft. In 
fact, some restrictions have been applied to technologies and 
products that were not even an issue in the lawsuit.
    However, the time has come to put this messy issue behind us and 
move on. In my profession I provide desktop instruction to employees 
at the world's largest casino, and Microsoft has made what I do much 
easier. The integration that Microsoft has provided makes everyone 
more efficient at what they do.
    I am in favor of the settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice, and hope to see the conclusion of this saga 
soon.
    Sincerely,
    Keith E. Pybus
    Mashantucket Pequot Academy
    Phone:ext. 21021 (860-312-1021)
    Fax:ext. 20133 (860-312-1033)



MTC-00009722

From: Ivan Ivanov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    This email is my modest attempt to support Microsoft in the 
case.
    As an IT professional I would like to express bitter 
disapointment from the damage this case has caused the IT companies 
and the whole IT industry.
    Hope DOJ will find reasonable settlement for the case which so 
far was only a backup for for Microsoft arogant competitors.
    Best Regards,
    Ivan Ivanov
    Software Engineer



MTC-00009723

From: Alex Hulse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I am a user of a wide variety of OSes on my PCs, which I use for 
business and pleasure. I have used the full range of Microsoft 
Windows OSes and several 'alternative' OSes including Linux 
distributions, BeOS 5 and QNX.
    I have been informed that you seek out the views of people as to 
what they feel is important in the final settlement in the case 
against Microsoft. My feeling is that the field has to be levelled 
regarding dual booting. Microsoft forbids the option to boot any 
other OS other than Windows on their OEM's machines. This is unfair. 
Microsoft should allow their competitors equal rights to the 
machine, to allow OEMs to choose the OS that suits the machine best, 
or allow their customers to make that decision themselves. Even if 
Windows is still required, it allows the user to see that there is 
an option of another OS, and that in some ways they can be better at 
different jobs; BeOS's media skills jump immediately to mind.
    I hope that you find my thoughts useful and that they can help 
towards making the OEM PC industry a fairer place for companies 
others than Microsoft.
    Yours Faithfully
    Alexander Hulse



MTC-00009724

From: Bill Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:14am
Subject: Tunney Act proposed Microsoft settlement comment
    Gentlemen:
    Per the provisions of the Tunney Act of 1974, I'd like to 
register my dismay and strong disagreement to the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is a clear triumph 
of politics over law and makes a travesty of the legal process.
    Microsoft was found guilty of abuse of its monopoly powers and 
that decision was affirmed on appeal. The proposed settlement is a 
slap on the wrist for a company whose predatory practices and 
continue to this day. Microsoft's defence appears to be based on the 
fact that to punish it would stifle innovation yet the bulk of its 
products, going back to the original MSDOS, were lifted from the 
work of others. If the Department of Justice were truly interested 
in upholding the law it would be seeking effective remedies such as 
the release of the Windows source code and/or the breakup of the 
company. For shame!
    Bill Schmidt
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009725

From: Gary Pigg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:24am
Subject: End the attack on Microsoft.



MTC-00009726

From: Ed (038) Cathy Sweeney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:25am
Subject: Let go of the Microsoft debacle!
    It is time to put this case to an end once and for all! In a 
country where Free Enterprise is a cornerstone to our history, and 
our current culture, why is the Justice Department continuing to 
pursue this ridiculous persecution of a company whose only crime is 
being the first to come up with the idea of contracting with 
computer manufacturers, and making a better product? If Microsoft 
does not have a better product the public will discover it and the 
better product will survive!
    Edward Sweeney



MTC-00009727

From: Freddy (038) Dana Yates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:30am
Subject: Clinton-era anti-trust abuse
    Drop the microsoft case and quit prosecuting Clinton era anti-
trust cases. We have more important issues to prosecute. 
Corporations make jobs and we need this right now. Bill Clinton done 
more against the justice system than Microsoft ever did.
    Thank you.
    Joseph F. Yates
    4411 Beechland Rd
    Springfield, Ky 40069

[[Page 25195]]



MTC-00009728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft Settlement should be upheld and 
that all should get on with work as usual ASAP. I do not understand 
the whole thing as this is the United States of America where free 
enterprise is supposed to be encouraged. If one has a superior 
product, his competitors must come up with something better. If you 
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen--as the saying goes.



MTC-00009729

From: John P. Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
    I am an extremely busy person but I thought it sufficiently 
important to stop all my meetings this morning to allow myself time 
to comment on the task before the justice department.
    Microsoft has since it inception co-opted, coerced and colluded 
with various manufacturers, both software and hardware, to not only 
dominate but decimate the marketplace. This is seen most clearly in 
the case of my operating system of choice, the Macintosh but applies 
equally well to Sun, Unix, Linux and others.
    Without the Mac none of you today would use a mouse, a graphical 
user interface (GUI) or even be discussing this topic because it 
would not exist. Microsoft quite clearly stole the OS design from 
Apple and although their lawyers were better than Apple1s in 
defending their case, nothing can change the fact that Windows in 
any flavor did NOT exist prior to the Macintosh. Since that time, 
Microsoft has gone on to co-opt every area that is available 
starting of course with business world. To be sure when this process 
started there was no apriori reason to believe that Microsoft would 
prevail and had they not procured the GUI, their market dominance 
would never be what it is today.
    I must say that I find it interesting that we speak in this 
country of diversity and how each of us needs to look for and 
nourish diversity wherever and whenever we can find it. Indeed the 
very basis of this country is diversity, EXCEPT where it comes to 
computer OS1s it seems. There we must cherish uniformity, mediocrity 
and domination. How does this jive with the constitutional basis of 
our nation? How does one justify basically telling me what system I 
will or will not use in my home? Oh, I am sure you will say that 
this does not happen but it does! Our school is a classic example. 
By using market dominance in business, Microsoft has coerced the 
University to become a Windows only shop. Now if I want to access 
certain information from home I must use a Windows computer or I 
cannot do my job. Is this what our country really wants? To be tied 
permanently and completely to one system? Especially if that system 
is riddled with security flaws and holes? I hope not. Why is this 
relevant to the current recommendation? As you can see, the ability 
of Microsoft to compel users to them is governed in a major way by 
how they can distribute their product. If you act to make that 
distribution easier, you doom all of us to a certain future in the 
hands of one, not so responsive, company. We as a nation would not 
tolerate one electric company, one public water company, one public 
sewer, trash, etc, why will we tolerate this?
    Further, when do we decide that my decision to use Linux or Unix 
or the Mac is any different than my choice of religion. Oh I can 
hear you, this is ridiculous as an analogy, but it actually works 
quite well. Religions are faith based, certainly in this case you 
are putting your work, your life in a very real sense, in the hands 
of the computer company with which you do business. If that religion 
or OS fails you, that is probably the end of your relationship; 
unless of course there is no other religion to choose . . . 
Religions are also chosen, most commonly by prior association but 
also quite commonly by the individual making a conscious decision to 
select the religion that most closely matches their world view. We 
consider religion to be a sacrosanct virtue in this country and 
protect and guard it closely. Should it be any different for our OS 
choice? Is it really in our country1s best interest to decrease the 
number of choices for religions? They tried that in Afghanistan . . 
.
    One might well ask how the current proposal will effect these 
changes? By making it very easy for Microsoft to enter into an arena 
where they have not traditionally dominated, education, one knocks 
down the last barrier to choice left in this country. The Apple 
proposal is wholly more sensible. Allowing schools to use the money 
donated by Microsoft in any manner that they see fit, allows true 
choice to continue and preserves the multi-ethnic character of our 
computer world.
    Indeed one could easily take the stand that to truly preserve 
the multi-ethinicity of our computer world we need affirmative 
action. That is we need to actually insist that some businesses be 
given special incentives to use OTHER computer OS1s in order to 
cause this multi-ethnicity to flourish. How can it be that we seek 
to do good in one area of our country while doing harm in another?
    In closing I would make one other analogy, this one quite close 
to home. There are many reasons why diversity is valued in a culture 
but it is also valued in nature. Indeed the very essence of nature 
is diversity. I do not think it is too much of a stretch to imagine 
what happens when one seeks to shrink the gene pool. There are 
numerous examples of how treacherous that coastline is...we need 
only think back on the 20th century to see what can happen when this 
type of thought process is allowed to roam free.
    More importantly, what would happen to group of people that were 
closely related and interbred when a new disease enters that group. 
If the group is sensitive to the infective organism, their culture 
is decimated. Look at what happened to the native Americans or 
islanders soon after the arrival of Europeans. With no natural 
immunity to smallpox, they were eradicated just as surely as if that 
had been a conscious and willful act. Do we really wish to place 
ourselves in this same position with our computers, our knowledge, 
our lives . . .
    I urge you to reject the current proposal for Microsoft at all 
costs. It is a dangerous and crumbling cornice on which we do not 
need to stand. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.
    Sincerely yours
    John P Williams, MD
    Interim Chair
    UPP Dept. of Anesthesiology
    A-1305 Scaife Hall
    3550 Terrace St.
    Pittsburgh, PA 15261
    Voice 412-648-9624
    FAX412-648-1887



MTC-00009730

From: Mary Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is getting ridiculous. Will you please stop wasting the 
taxpayers money already? The public has always had a right to chose 
what they want. If I go to the store I have choices. They may not be 
a lot of choices but then again, I haven't seen any other products 
out there that are as efficient and user-friendly. All these 
companies need to stop complaining and come out with a good, 
reliable product that consumer would want. If they had worked as 
hard as they are fighting against Microsoft they would have a good 
product by now!
    What kind of country have we become when we go after people that 
are only trying to improve our technology and benefit the world? 
Instead of wasting your time with this ludicrous pursuit you should 
all be looking for Bin Laden and his people and stop harassing 
valued and outstanding citizens like Mr. Gates and his employees.
    Sincerely,
    Satisfied Microsoft Consumer



MTC-00009731

From: Rep.Jensen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  10:22am
Subject: Attn: Renata Hesse



MTC-00009732

From: David Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:32am
Subject: USG vs. MSFT
Dave Brookes
2220 Montgomery Avenue
Cardiff, CA 92007
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    During this time of economic strain, it is sad to see the 
government holding back on issues that would obviously be beneficial 
to our economy. The recent Microsoft settlement was reached after 
three years of well thought out negotiations, and with the benefit 
of our entire IT sector in mind.
    Well, now that it is ready to move forward and get things 
rolling, there still seems to be those who want to drag it through 
the mud. Not only has Microsoft agreed to reconfigure licensing and 
marketing terms, but also it has agreed to redesign various formats 
of

[[Page 25196]]

Windows in order to facilitate easier use of non-Microsoft software. 
These concessions, along with many others have been agreed upon in 
order to get the IT sector to move forward in this global market. 
Now that all parties are ready to move, why can't we get back to 
business?
    Please help support this settlement, and all of the well thought 
out concessions that have been made. Let us not be the ones to hold 
back our economy.
    Is it not time for Washington to do something for the people? 
Have we not paid for all the mistake Washington makes? Why are we 
always fighting for ourselves? Why does Washington contiune to harm 
it's tax paying, voting citizen?
    Sincerely,
    Dave Brookes



MTC-00009733

From: Cameron Purdy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:31am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney I am submitting my comments as per 
the instructions in the Federal Register in regards to the pending 
case brought by states and the US Department of Justice against 
Microsoft.
    1. I have read the findings of fact from the case, as penned by 
Judge Penfield Jackson, I have read the Final Judgment, as proposed 
by the United States and Microsoft, and I have read the proposed 
remedies from the nine states that rejected the United States/
Microsoft proposed Final Judgment.
    2. I concur that the proposed Final Judgment could potentially 
limit certain actions that Microsoft has historically employed 
against computer OEMs.
    3. I find no other relationship between the known and accepted 
transgressions of Microsoft against antitrust law as presented and 
proved at trial, and the proposed Final Judgment.
    It is my opinion that the proposed Final Judgment does not 
address most of Microsoft's illegal behaviors that were clearly 
documented at trial: It does not submit that such behaviors have 
taken place; it does not attempt to correct the past wrongs; it does 
not include any punitive measures; and lastly it does not attempt to 
prevent future transgressions.
    On the other hand, the nine states' proposals are based on the 
conclusion that Microsoft has transgressed, that there must be 
actions taken to correct those transgressions, that punitive 
measures may be appropriate for those transgressions, and that it is 
necessary to provide a means to prevent or address future 
transgressions. While arguably flawed, the proposals are at least 
based on the known and proven transgressions, and at least attempt 
to respond to those transgressions. How could it be that the 
proposed Final Judgment negotiated by the US Department of Justice 
does not take the same approach? One must question where the 
proposed Final Judgment originated, since it certainly cannot have 
originated from the findings of the trial known as the United States 
of America v. Microsoft Corporation that many of us have so closely 
watched.
    I submit that it would be far better for the United States to 
altogether drop the proposed Final Judgment and request dismissal of 
the case than to enter such a flawed and pointless document as a 
final judgment. The proposed Final Judgment does not provide any 
sense or form of justice; rather it represents an absolute mockery 
of our government's will to enforce the law and lends credence to 
the growing chorus of voices that lament the influence of money and 
politics over those appointed to protect the interests of the people 
of the United States of America.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Cameron Purdy, President
    Tangosol Inc.
    402A Highland Ave
    Somerville MA 02144 USA



MTC-00009734

From: Craig Madsen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  10:32am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Case
From: Craig Madsen
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dear DOJ, etc.,
    I am writing to put my 2 cents worth about the antitrust case 
against Microsoft Corp.
    I feel like Microsoft is using their OS dominance to stifle 
every bit of competition possible. I totally agree with the 9 states 
that are fighting this thing to the bitter end. I also don't agree 
with the current settlement at all. For Microsoft to spend a bunch 
of money for the schools does absolutely nothing to stop them from 
continuing to do what they have been doing for years--except try to 
catch up with Apple, Inc. in the school battles!! I also don't mind 
spending my tax dollars to do whatever is necessary to make them pay 
for what they have already done.
    We watched them 'give away' a browser and all but kill a 
competitor(s). Tomorrow they start giving away databases, and before 
long, who knows? If there was a competitor to the government, they 
would buy them, reduce the price on whatever they were selling to 
nothing and kill them off too. Once dead, they can raise the price 
back to whatever they need to.
    Do I want Microsoft dead? Probably not, however, I want them to 
have to use the same playing field as the rest of the businesses in 
america that don't control 90% of the operating system business. 
Break them up. Make them give out their source code to anyone, so we 
could all make products as quickly as them!
    p.s. I was trying to send this to: microsoft.atr@usdoj as well, 
but my e-mail package didn't like this. Do you know how I can get a 
copy of this to them?
    Thanks,
    Craig Madsen
    (801)-961-3045
    155 North 400 West
    Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1111



MTC-00009735

From: Donald Bosshart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using computers since 1966, have read the proposed 
settlement and think that it is very fair. MS has made computing 
simple and very very productive. I use MS products to operate my 
business.
    While some would like to distroy MS, they are motivated by greed 
and anger. The punishment should fit the crime and the current 
settlement goes way beyond the crime. Let us move beyond this case 
and move forward to new innovations. Settle it now!
    Donald A. Bosshart, Ed. D.
    315 Elmwood Drive
    Kent OH 44240



MTC-00009736

From: Richard Buckley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:52am
Subject: For cryin out loud.
    The Clinton era bashed these For cryin out loud. The Clinton era 
bashed these people to no end. This has gone on long enough. I am 
from the old school ``if you build a better mouse trap they will 
come.'' All these competitors and Attorney Generals who are crying 
over Microsoft's success is just sour grapes.
    They have created more jobs and more entrepreneours, (sic), in 
this country than any single company in existence. Why bash them 
about their success? I do not own any Microsoft stock nor have I 
ever owned any but I can tell when jealous come into play and that 
is all this is. If you want to beat them in the marketplace then 
make a better product. I will buy it. It is that simple.



MTC-00009737

From: steve parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is no settlement of any kind that can be considered fair 
for Microsoft. All aspects of the DOJ case against Microsoft are so 
unjust that I could sit here and generate a book, rather than a 
simple email message (I'll save the book for a later time). Instead, 
I would rather express what I believe is one of the key reasons why 
any settlement of any kind is unjust for Microsoft Corp.
    AOL, which has been a key Internet Service Provider (ISP) for 
years, has held the largest market share within the industry, more 
than any other ISP, including MSN (the Microsoft Network). Yet AOL 
went whining to the government that they were being monopolized by 
Microsoft, and now Microsoft is having unjust legalities imposed 
upon them, not because they are a monopoly, but because there is the 
?potential? that one day they ?may become? a monopoly.
    Several years ago, I was a CompuServe user. Then (before AOL 
ever went running to the government) I switched to AOL. I installed 
their product on my computer and used AOL as my ISP for just over a 
month. They frequently advertised about being the most user-friendly 
ISP around. A month is all I could stand. They were awful. Their 
software always blew up on my computer and their tech support 
service was nearly incompetent. For example, 3 of their techs

[[Page 25197]]

said the problem was my computer, not their software. So I bought 
another computer and installed the AOL software again. The same 
problems. After trying NetZero and AT&T, I eventually found MSN to 
be superior to them all.
    Microsoft is a serious company and a serious competitor. As the 
old saying goes, ?if you can?t stand the heat, get out of the 
kitchen?. But apparently, today's new saying is, ?if you can?t stand 
the heat, go running to the government?. AOL whining is what brought 
this situation to where it is today. Microsoft faces these 
settlements, not because it was being an unfair competitor, but 
because they are a competitor in the truest sense. Hopefully the 
government won?t eventually ?break the back? of one of the greatest 
technology corporations this world has every seen, cause if they do, 
then we might get stuck with crap like AOL.



MTC-00009738

From: Jason of Sedona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer consultant I believe I have a fair understanding 
of the case and it's impact on the industry. I understand the role 
of Microsoft, the participating State A.G.s and the role that 
Netscape and the competition plays. Considering that the case has 
gone this far, it is my belief that the case needs to be settled as 
quickly and fairly as possible.
    For eighteen years I have been working with Microsoft products. 
I have been hoping to build a successful company and create a niche 
in the market myself. If I were lead to believe that this travesty 
of justice could happen to me upon becoming successful then I would 
be less likely to even try. To have the Justice Department and the 
Attorney Generals be against me because my competition is jealous of 
my success and has lobbied to slow my success is appalling. There is 
no question in my mind. Microsoft has moved this industry and this 
great country into a computing era that allows ALL of us to succeed. 
Netscape, AOL, and Yahoo who, if NOT for Microsoft, would not be 
here to complain about how much is their share of the market. Please 
settle this in Microsoft's favor because that in turn will benefit 
me, and my business, and my customers, and my Country.
    Thank you.
    Jason Tamm
    Jason Tamm Consulting
    Sedona, AZ 86351



MTC-00009739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed this law suit for some time now and want to 
express my opinion on the matter. I would ask that the settlement 
with Microsoft be accepted and let's get on with the business of 
rebuilding our country's economy. This has gone on long enough and 
needs to be settled and placed behind us as we are attempting to 
accomplish more important things.
    Lawrence L. Pomeroy



MTC-00009740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/9/02  11:20am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I work in the tech industry designing 
CPU's. I have been extensively involved in the use and design of 
computer hardware and software for years. It is probably also worth 
noting that I do not work for a company that competes with 
Microsoft.
    I would like to state my strong oposition to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement based on the following grounds:
    (1) The proposed settlement does not forceably correct the 
problem of illegal anti-competitive behavior which the courts ruled 
Microsoft has engaged in.
    (2) The proposed settlement does not even give Microsoft much of 
an incentive to correct the illegal anti-competitive behavior.
    (3) This anti-competitive behavior has caused and continues to 
cause enormous harm to consumers and the economy.
    The proposed settlement does not forceably correct the problem 
of illegal anti-competitive behavior which the courts ruled 
Microsoft has engaged in. The settlement only asks for some very 
limited behavior modification and does very little to ensure that 
even these limited behavior modifications can be enforced. 
Microsoft's history clearly demonstrates it's ability to be creative 
in it's anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft's history further 
demonstrates it's willingness to break laws and violate agreements 
if it thinks it can get away with it. This case, which is about 
violation of a previous consent decree and of our nations anti-trust 
laws, clearly demonstrates this. Any successful remedy must be 
enforceable and comprehensive.
    The proposed settlement does not even give Microsoft much of an 
incentive to correct the illegal anti-competitive behavior. Take 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in the browser market, for 
example. Microsoft behaved in an illegal, anti-competitive manner 
because it was concerned that the browser platform could threaten or 
replace it's business and consumer desktop software platform 
monopoly. It's behavior made sure that this threat was eliminated. 
The proposed settlement would slap Microsoft with a few minor 
unenforceable behavior restrictions. If you set aside ethics and 
morality, that looks like a pretty good return on investment. This 
is not lost on Microsoft.
    The anti-competitive behavior has caused and continues to cause 
enormous harm to consumers and the economy. This is one of the least 
understood and most important aspects of this case. Clearly, the 
government wants to protect the economy. Protecting the economy is a 
noble goal, but they are misguided in trying to do so by protecting 
Microsoft. The fundamental driving force of capitalism is 
competition. Microsoft would argue that it is only being punished 
for being a ruthless competitor. However, throughout the history of 
our country, there have been many examples of monopolistic, anti-
competitive behavior causing harm to the economy. Many times and in 
many ways, the goverment has stepped in with rules which provide a 
level competitive playing field on which competition may flurish. 
There are rules against cornering commodities markets. There are 
accounting rules. There are truth in advertising rules. There are 
rules against fraud. There are rules against selling defective 
products.--And, there are rules against leveraging a monopoly to 
eliminate competition. Breaking any of these rules could be 
portrayed as just being a ruthless competitor, but our economy will 
not function very well at all if these rules are not enforced. I 
could go on and on giving examples of how Microsoft's illegal anti-
competitive behavior has harmed the competition, but any and all 
examples can be disputed (because we can't replay history) if one 
does not believe that leveraging a monopoly to thwart competition 
fundamentally harms consumers and the economy. If one does believe 
this, then examples are not hard to come by. (Although understanding 
the examples usually requires a fair amount of technical competence 
and understanding of the industry--always a difficult aspect of this 
case.)
    Sincerely,
    James McCormick
    [email protected]
    P.S. The opinions expressed in this letter are mine alone. They 
do not in any way represent any positions taken by my employer.



MTC-00009741

From: Mike Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:22am
Subject: The let em oof free deal
    I wish to express my concerns for the reported deal between 
Microsoft and States and Gov. It is the type of deal that lawyers 
such as those of microsoft hire can work around on a daily basis 
without even a hitch in their daily operations as they intended them 
to be anyway. This deal does nothing to remedy the fact they have 
stolen from the public in many ways including monetary and products 
that could have been, but were squashed by this unruly giant.
    On the subject of fines, I certainly think a very large fine 
would make sense, considering their finacial status which is also 
coming under eyes.
    I certainly hope that the gov. would rejoin the nine states that 
have held out and put some controls on this runaway, unruly, money 
hungry, corporation.
    Mike Hall



MTC-00009742

From: Trish Mercer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:22am
Subject: Please End This Travisty
    I have been shocked at this lawsuit from the very beginning. It 
only continues to HURT out economy and citizens savings plans. 
PLEASE end this outrage! I have yet to see any good coming from 
this.
    Trish Mercer
    PO Box 8825
    Columbus, GA 31908

[[Page 25198]]



MTC-00009743

From: Theodore Saari
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I received an mass-mailing email from Microsoft that requested 
we send our views on the proposed settlement to you ``Whatever your 
view of the settlement.'' Just before this ``unbiased'' request for 
comments, Microsoft said: ``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.''
    I have received NO solicitations from any person or group in any 
form that asked me to voice my opinion on this settlement. It 
appears to me that Microsoft is the one waging a campaign to get 
public response to the proposed settlement. The wording of their 
request clearly suggests the type of response they desire.
    Microsoft's claim that ``only a few wealthy competitors'' will 
benefit from prolonged litigation is amazing. Microsoft is one of 
the wealthiest companies in the world. Bill Gates is reported to be 
the wealthiest person in the world. Many of Microsoft's executives 
are extremely wealthy. Microsoft and its executives are the ones who 
will benefit most from a quick settlement, especially one where they 
have dictated the terms of it. The wealth acquired by Microsoft, 
Bill Gates, and the executives is the result of a monopolistic and 
coercive business environment. Microsoft's restrictions on 
competitors and their use of proprietary ``undocumented features'' 
of their operating systems has handicapped any competition for 
years. Their restrictions and bullying of OEMs has made the MS 
operating systems the de facto standard for many years. There are 
virtually no competitors to their operating systems.
    Microsoft's proposal as part of the settlement to ``donate'' $1 
billion in hardware and software to the poorest public schools is 
one of the best (and cheapest) advertising gimmicks they could get 
from this settlement. Not only will the schools be teaching and 
supporting MS products, Microsoft will be able to take a tax 
deduction on this advertising. They will reap extreme benefits from 
this punishment.
    I support the nine states that have not accepted this proposed 
settlement and urge the US Government to reject it.
    Theodore C Saari
    7917 Orchard Ave N
    Brooklyn Park, MN 55443-2414
    763-585-6578



MTC-00009744

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:26am
Subject: Microsoft
    Let us settle this matter as propsed and get it behind us. The 
case was origially tainted with the bias of the Clinton 
Administration and wealthy competitors who tried to profit from 
Microsoft's litigation LET US STOP THIS TYPE OF EXTORTION.
    Microsoft has contributed mightily to the American economy and 
has suffered enough.
    M. Raddie



MTC-00009745

From: Connie Gipson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:26am
Subject: STOP THE ABUSE
    Leave Microsoft alone, they have helped millions of people.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Gipson



MTC-00009746

From: Elvin Kever
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:36pm
Subject: M$
    Do not let them get away with it!!!



MTC-00009747

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:39am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Attn. DOJ:
    Please accept this comment as a citizen request to let the 
Tunney Act become the final prosecution of Microsoft. I encourage 
you not to yield to special interests who would continue to bring 
lawsuit after lawsuit of Microsoft into the courts.
    Dick Crump
    ([email protected])



MTC-00009748

From: Bill Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing in support of the current proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust law suite.
    I have been involved with building computer based information 
systems since the early 1970's one of the most notable being the 
Lexis/Nexis information system used by Lawyers and Business 
professionals. I have been involved with personal computers since 
the introduction of the IBM PC in the early 1980's and have not 
always been in agreement with Microsoft's Windows based strategies 
in that in the early years they pushed the limits of the desktop 
hardware systems they ran on making the development of 
telecommunication applications more difficult. The introduction of 
Windows 95 with the integration of the TCP/IP protocol within the 
operating system changed that perspective completely.
    It is clear to me as one who has experienced it--that Microsoft 
has been driven by a vision of what personal computers could be in 
terms of knowledge access and manipulation tools. The result of that 
vision is that my grandchildren can now routinely sit down at a 
$1,500 PC system equipped with a Word Processor that came with the 
system and perform activity that was not possible to do in any 
manner on a $12 million dollar computer in 1975. On that same 
computer with the Internet Explorer software suite that came with it 
and a $19.99 a month subscription to the internet my grandchildren 
in the United States and my grandchildren in Brussels Belgium 
routinely have video conferences to share what is going on their 
lives use a free service at the Microsoft Network web site.
    Microsoft could have at many times during the past 20 years 
chosen to take an easier path to profits but instead it has 
consistently invested in innovations that have made the things I 
listed above a reality that almost all Americans can access if they 
choose to regardless of their economic status.
    It is my sense that this entire law suite was based upon claims 
made by companies who wanted to take that easy route or bet on the 
fact that Microsoft would not be able to deliver their vision and 
lost. Everyone of them has had the opportunity to deliver the 
products they now criticize Microsoft for producing and chose a 
different path. Many in a sense had the monopoly and chose to use it 
rather than spend on the product development costs create what the 
market wanted.
    I hope this matter can be settled as proposed in a timely 
manner.
    Sincerely Yours,
    William K. Thomson
    4425 Lac Lamen Drive
    Centerville, OH 45458-5403
    [email protected]



MTC-00009749

From: trebor iksrazal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:48am
Subject: In short, why I am against the settlement
    Competition is the key to open, productive markets. It has been 
ruled that Microsoft has used its monopoly in several sectors to 
wipe out competition in others. I have been a computer programmer 
for six years, my first four of which were exclusively on Microsoft 
operating systems. I have been programming in Java for the last two 
years on Windows, linux, and Sun Solaris. I think that the file 
formats to Office, Visual Studio, Windows Media Player, and numerous 
others should be submitted to standards committes such as ANSI.
    The proposal suggested by California and eight other states to 
reveal the source code behind Microsoft Internet Explorer browser 
and include support for Sun Microsystems' Java in Windows is also 
good. As it stands, my professional livelyhood is threatened by 
Microsoft, due to proprietary lock-in to its products. Simply put, 
Microsoft has tried to destroy Java and is in an open war with 
Linux.
    I am constantly sent proprietary Microsoft files while I am 
programming on non-Microsoft products. How will the proposed 
settlement address these grievances? Clearly to me, they were not 
intended to. I would like Microsoft to win me over to their 
products, not eliminate the competition as it has largley done to 
Netscape.
    It is clear that Microsoft is at war with end user self-
determinization.
    Look now how Microsoft is using Windows Media Player to destroy 
Realplayer, look now how Internet Explorer insists on using 
Microsoft's propietary Visual Basic Scripting engine while viewing 
web pages that do not use it.

[[Page 25199]]

    Look now how Microsoft is manipulating this case to actually 
increase its dominance by getting itself into schools.
    In short, Microsoft products only work with other Microsoft 
products. There is a need to open up their file formats to standards 
commitees. there is a need to open the source code to Internet 
Explorer so it is possible to view the entire web without a 
Microsoft Operating System.
    Thanks for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Lazarski
    8193 Centrebridge
    Niwot, Colorado 80503



MTC-00009750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:51am
Subject: RE:MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Seymour Beitscher
41 Cypress Point
Abilene, Texas 79606
915-692-1561 [Fax:915-692-1561]
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I take this opportunity to express my views regarding your wise 
decision to end the government's antitrust litigation against 
Microsoft. I, too, am a buisness owner and, as such, have always 
tried to stay ahead of my competition by utilizing new and unique 
methods. Some of those methods met with severe criticisms from my 
competitors, no matter how innoculous to fair and equitable business 
procedures they were. Competitors always cry 'foul' when they are 
surpassed by the competition. In essence, that is what I think 
occurred in this matter.
    However, I do believe the giant [Microsoft] did flex its muscle 
a bit to much. Microsoft did not get out of this delemna easy. 
Microsoft has agreed to make available information regarding its 
internal structure of Windows, which now allows its competitors to 
compete. I do not understand this reasoning since I would not supply 
my competitors with any procedure I deem propriatory and beneficial 
to me.
    In conclusion, I think that if the government moves against 
Microsoft again it will be nothing more than harrassment. Who is to 
say the severe decline in the ``tech'' section of the economy was 
not precipitated by the government's legal stance against Microsoft? 
Our economy now, more than ever, needs stability.
    The economy, and the administration, needs to keep Microsoft out 
of the muck and mire it has been stuck in these past three years. 
Helping Microsoft weather this storm will be successful in 
stimulating the economy over a broad span in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Seymour Beitscher



MTC-00009751

From: Duane Tackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:49am
Subject: Opposition to the proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may Concern:
    I would like to take the opportunity to voice my opposition to 
the comparatively weak settlement offered by the DOJ against 
Microsoft. I feel that more should be done to prevent Microsoft from 
extending it's monopoly, including opening up it's software so that 
consomate professionals can review it and fix the numberous security 
flaws that are inherit in its code. If MS is allowe dto proceed with 
``business as usual'' then the result will be more bug ridden 
software with higher prices.
    Please, help restore competition by making Microsoft more 
accountable to the people who use their software every day. Thank 
you in advance for considering this tract.
    Duane Tackett
    Network Administrator
    Linux Enthusiast



MTC-00009752

From: Bob Agnew
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  11:53am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The vast majority of the national news media, let alone the 
American citizenry, has not understood the ramifications of the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft, let alone the ``settlement'' 
offered therefrom.
    We are rapidly moving to a position, as a nation, where the vast 
majority of major large corporations as well as small businesses are 
becoming dependent on Microsoft and the Windows operating system and 
associated products (Office, Internet Explorer).
    This is not merely the old ``ta vs. VHS'' argument, but the 
complete obviating of all corporate responsibility to Microsoft. 
Microsoft has shown complete contempt for the U.S. Government and 
people of the United States. Witness the latest changes to the cost 
of licensing Microsoft products. Once they've got all the operating 
system and desktop application business in their court, they'll be 
able to make any changes to the software and/or pricing they so 
desire--completely relieving corporate America of any fiduciary 
responsibility to shareholders, employees or customers.
    Microsoft didn't ``invent'' Windows or the use of the mouse as a 
graphic-input device, yet it has a defacto monopoly of the desktop 
operating system. We've seen how, in the absence of innovation by 
Microsoft, they purchase companies that actually do innovate--then 
proceed to bastardize the acquired product/company until the end-
user no longer remembers when a product used to be good. (The 
Windows XP operating system is a good example: it now includes a 
rudimentary raster image processing/editing tool for the digital 
photographer, which will naturally prevent the sales of better 
software by highly specialized companies--since XP is including the 
barely passable version for free.)
    Inevitably, Microsoft will be able to monitor the desktops of 
corporate America and perhaps even use ``push'' technology to 
advance its own agenda. In other words, Microsoft will eventually 
control our economy and the majority of our lifestyle based on the 
whims of Mr. Gates & Co. I don't wish to sound alarmist, but even in 
its heyday, IBM couldn't be blamed for trying to control as much of 
the American economy and lifestyle as Microsoft eventually will.
    The settlement of having Microsoft provide software and hardware 
to school districts actually plays right into the hands of 
Microsoft--at the expense of Apple, which has done a much better job 
of courting the school-age computer users. What better way to 
encourage the uninterrupted continuation of the Microsoft monopoly 
than by getting them ``hooked'' at a young age in the schools? I am 
neither a proponent nor an opponent of the PC or the Mac. I just 
wish someone, somewhere would realize what all the fuss was about in 
the first place: Microsoft stifles competition and innovation. 
That's the truth. And just 'cause Microsoft sells Windows, Word, 
Access, Internet Explorer--doesn't mean those are the best products. 
They're just the cheapest and the easiest for the vast majority of 
average Americans to operate. Henry Ford performed a similar 
``service'' with the automobile in the early years of that 
industry--but he didn't stifle competition and buy out competitors 
just to put them out of business. The American Public wouldn't have 
stood for that.
    Robert M. Agnew
    Sr. GIS Analyst--Administrator
    City of Las Vegas
    (702) 229-6049



MTC-00009753

From: kouryab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:56am
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    I think the so-called settlement with Microsoft will do nothing 
except insure that they will increase their monopoly. If they are 
allowed to give schools old computers and software to run them all 
this will do is make sure that these schools will have to update 
their systems with Microsoft software. Most old computers will not 
run anything new as far as current operating systems. What should be 
done is to make Microsoft pay the settlement amout in cash and then 
allow the schools to buy what they need and not be restricted to old 
and out dated equiptment and operating sustems.
    Al Koury



MTC-00009754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want it be said I do not agree with prolonging this 
settlement. It is meant only to benifit a few and try to stop great 
invoation on Microsofts part. Microsoft is responsible for making 
home and office computer accessable to all and with out it we would 
be up a creek. I say enough is enough get off of Microsofts back and 
get on with improving our lives like Micrsoft has done so well.
    Nancy Simpson
    Indianapolis



MTC-00009755

From: Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case

[[Page 25200]]

    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    More than a year and a half ago I wrote the following e-mail to 
Texas Federal Senators. It basically gives a layman's point-of-view 
on the Federal Antitrust Prosecution of Microsoft at that time. You 
may wish only to scan the contents at this time.
    ``Dear Senators,
    My understanding of the Federal Anti-trust Laws is that they 
were intended to protect the general public from any economic or 
physical harm, which may be caused by collusion among individuals 
and companies on product price or product availability.
    When Judge Thomas Jackson ruled last November that Microsoft 
violated Federal Antitrust Laws, he gave no indication that 
Microsoft had in any way harmed the public. This seems to me to have 
missed the first test on application of the law. In fact, there are 
many of us (public) who believe that Microsoft has made a tremendous 
contribution to the public through the process of establishing a 
workable system of communication through the Internet. There is no 
doubt that Microsoft has harmed its competitors through the 
competitors' inability to compete strongly. But this is a clear 
indication that the purpose of the Anti-trust Laws is functioning; 
i.e, fierce competition.
    If Microsoft had driven its competitors out of business and then 
raised prices beyond reasonable limits or limited product 
availability, that would be a different matter. But, they have not 
done that. If I were a Microsoft competitor, I would be much tempted 
to be in court claiming ``foul'', because that is the easiest way to 
gain an advantage. I don't know what motivated Judge Jackson to his 
conclusion, but if he was influenced by competitors' claims of pain, 
he should have had one more reason to recognize that no anti-trust 
violation existed.
    We might also consider the matter of ``bundling'', which has 
been a ``red herring'' in this whole situation. I recently bought a 
Cadillac Deville and wanted the Convenience Package. However, the 
``bundle'' included a compass, which I didn't want. Was I hurt, when 
I took the ``bundle''? Yes. Did I have an option to not take the 
``bundle''? Yes. Can I expect that the Federal Justice Department 
will soon be suing General Motors for infringement of Anti-trust 
Laws? You may want to answer that one.
    Some have said that present Anti-trust Laws are out-moded and 
need to be brought up to date. I do not believe that is so. 
Violation of the present law is a serious matter. As in most 
categories of civil or criminal violation, a violation is committed 
by an individual or a group of individuals, who have seriously 
damaged the public. The retribution for such damage is jail time, 
with the ancillary advantage of discouraging future potential 
violators from similar action. Have Bill Gates and perhaps other 
members of Microsoft violated Federal Antitrust Laws? If so, they 
should get jail time. If jail time seems inappropriate, one should 
then re-ask whether there has been a violation.
    Human beings tend to enjoy positions of power and authority, and 
Federal Prosecutors are no exception. What better way is there for a 
Federal Prosecutor to obtain recognition than to prosecute one of 
the largest corporations in the world? If we can't get Bill Gates 
directly, we'll get him indirectly, even if we can't prove our case 
to the extent to give him jail time.
    Such action by the Justice Department is not prosecution. It is 
persecution and should not be permitted. We have already seen the 
difficulties caused by the Spanish Inquisition. The purpose of 
government is to establish and maintain a reasonably fair playing 
field. When there is a winner, it is not government's role to take 
away the prize because other contenders did not have the capability 
to compete. If government does that, it is meddling.
    We now have 19 states and others, for a total of 28 
organizations, also suing Microsoft for anti-trust violations. One 
must ask whether these are legitimate suits or whether because of 
our litigious society these appendages are using the previous good 
reputation of the Federal Government to obtain windfalls in damage 
settlements.
    Dear Senators, I have earlier said that I believe the present 
Anti-trust Laws are satisfactory for today's society. However, with 
subsequent sociological changes in our society since the 
establishment of those laws, it is probably appropriate for Congress 
in general and the Senate in particular to more specifically define 
these laws in order to avoid persecution by aggressive career 
seekers in the Justice Department.
    Through Justice Department persecution, Microsoft is being 
seriously hurt financially and in their ability to concentrate on 
continued innovation to further develop the Internet and related 
communication devices. This is a disadvantage to the general public, 
and you may want to consider some form of specific intervention to 
bring this matter to a quick conclusion. The law enforcement people 
are obviously confused, and I humbly suggest that it is up to 
Congress to show leadership.
    Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
    4203 96th Street
    Lubbock, TX 79423
    Ph: 806-794-1381
    4203 96th Street
    Lubbock, Texas 79423''
    I recently had a phone call from a Microsoft employee. He had a 
hazy knowledge concerning the above e-mail. While Microsoft was not 
copied, and I do not know how that e-mail came to his attention, it 
was not private. The Microsoft employee advised me that part of the 
recent agreement between Microsoft and the Federal Department of 
Justice required a time period for the public to comment. The 
Microsoft employee indirectly asked me to comment to you on their 
behalf. In fact, he had drafted a letter for my approval and 
signature, and which I chose not to use.
    I am pleased that this case is being concluded. In retrospect, I 
believe a Justice Department investigation should have been 
initiated, but a case should not have been filed.
    My experience with commercial matters has led me to conclude 
that Microsoft was aggressive in their business practices but not 
illegal and in no way damaged the public.
    I have been advised that Microsoft will design future versions 
of Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer 
makers, consumers and software developers (competitors) to promote 
non-Microsoft software within Windows. The mechanism will make it 
easy to add or remove access to features built into Windows or into 
non-Microsoft software. Consumers will have the freedom to choose to 
change their configuration at any time.
    Such concession on the part of Microsoft goes well beyond what I 
consider a reasonable settlement. Consumers have always had the 
option to use non-Microsoft software. They have used Microsoft, 
because it is better than competitive offerings.
    Let's finish up the Agreement, close down the case, let 
Microsoft take its unjust penalties, and get on with our business of 
building a better country.
    For those who may suspect that I have an ulterior motive in 
writing this e-mail, let me say that I receive no special benefit 
from Microsoft, have never worked for the Company, have no friends 
or family that have ever worked for the Company, and that less than 
2% of my stock portfolio is in Microsoft stock.
    Respectfully yours,
    Arthur C. Sucsy
    4203 96th Street
    Lubbock, TX 79423
    806-794-1381
    CC:Sucsy D & P,Sucsy Dr. Robert W.,Woodward Karen,Suc...



MTC-00009756

From: Greg Mader
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  12:04pm
Subject: I disagree with the proposed microsoft anti-trust 
settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I respectfully disagree with the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft, as it allows them to continue to ``embrace and extend'' 
open protocols with their own proprietary extensions, and, 
eventually, stomp out competition. Notice the pattern of RTF for 
word processing, PPTP for Virtual Private Networks, and Kerberos for 
authentication. In all of these cases, Microsoft, while claiming to 
embrace an open standard, remove access and interoperability 
features, and refuse to release their changes. I recommend that they 
be allowed to continue as a company, but make manditory disclosers, 
or ``Open Source'' their technology, supervised by a review board. 
Please do not punish users of other operating systems by allowing 
Microsoft to push them into oblivion. Instead, encourage Microsoft 
to release specifications or source code necessary to interoperate 
with their software.
    Thank You,
    Greg Mader
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00009758

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letter was sent to Attorney General Ashcroft and Sen. Rick 
Santorum
    Richard Ross

[[Page 25201]]



MTC-00009759

From: John Heuerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
18419 79th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to express my support for the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I feel that 
this suit needs to come to an end and that this settlement is a fair 
way to do so. The three-year process was not only well thought out 
and well monitored, but it had all parties in mind.
    This settlement will be good for the technology industry, as 
well as the U.S. economy, not to mention the American consumer. The 
IT sector has floundered without the innovative leadership of 
Microsoft for the last three years, we will not see a turn around in 
the field until we can put this litigation behind us.
    I trust that you will strive to implement this settlement. It is 
imperative that this suit ends, and that we can move on and focus on 
more vitally important issues affecting our nation.
    Sincerely,
    John Heuerman



MTC-00009760

From: Walter Dominguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft AntiTrust
    Why can't you just leave sucessful buisness alone. This company 
has done more for consumers and the world in General than any of you 
bias'd self asserting politicians have in Centuries!!! Get over it, 
should they be punished for being sucessful and their competitors 
just could not handle getting beat in the market place?? come on!!



MTC-00009761

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Isn't it time we stopped this fruitless battle in which only the 
lawyers win and the consumers lose. We have far greater problems in 
our country than pursuing and trying to reduce one of the greatest 
companies ever established. Let's stop the whining by the 
prosecutors and settle this case once and for all. Allow Microsoft 
to innovate and implement the new technologies we as consumers are 
waiting for.
    Enough is enough!
    C.J. Roum



MTC-00009762

From: James (038) Pearl Tank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department:
    Communism is almost dead. One of its principles was that people 
had to have a lid on how much money and/or things they could 
possess; the excess had to be dispersed to the multitudes. This did 
not lead to much ambition on the part of the people.
    Bill Gates has had an entrepreneurial spirit and worked hard to 
get his company going successfully. He has earned everything he has 
and our country has benefited in many ways from his work. Let us not 
put a cap on his or any else's ambition by taking away their just 
deserts. Let us not revive the communistic way, but let it die in 
disgrace. Let us end the wasteful spending being conducted in this 
case and get on with the business of America.
    Thank you for all your work.
    James Tank
    215 Mack Ct.
    Brillion, WI 54110-1330
    920-756-3474
    [email protected]



MTC-00009763

From: Nick Maier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    Please allow me to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. 
Microsoft has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated anti-competitive 
and criminal activity. They have both threatened and recriminated 
against competitors that have elected not to collude with them in 
anti-competitive activity.
    The most effective way to prevent Microsoft's executives, its 
employees, and it's Board of Directors from behaving in this way is 
to levy a very large fine against the company. I would recommend a 
fine in the amount of $1.0 Billion dollars. A fine of this amount 
will serve as a major ``wake-up call'' to the company, it's 
attorney's, it's employees, it's shareholders and it's Board of 
Directors. This is the only way to change the anti-competitive 
philosophy that is deeply ingrained in the Company.
    I urge you to act forcefully to change this behavior, now. There 
will be no second chances.
    nm
    Nicholas Maier--President
    NewZing.com, Inc.
    2465 East Bayshore Drive, Suite 400
    Palo Alto, CA 94303
    [email protected]
    (650) 255-7403
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009764

From: Les Brunswick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to point out one way in which the settlement that 
the Department of Justice agreed to is deeply flawed. By breaking 
the anti-trust laws Microsoft made enormous ilegal gains in terms of 
profits and market share. Yet under the agreement it is not forced 
to turn back any of these, but instead gets to keep them. The lesson 
that Microsoft learns from the agreement is that it is to its own 
advantage to break the law. The predictable consequence is that 
Microsoft will continue to break the law in the future, in old ways 
or new ones. It would not be hard to make Microsoft give up its near 
monopoly in the internet browser market. It gained it by forcing 
original equipment manufacturers to install Internet Explorer (which 
was subsidized by its monopoly-level profits from Windows) and not 
carry Netscape Navigator. The remedy could be for Internet Explorer 
to be unbundled from Windows, for OEM's to be forbidden for several 
years to install Internet Explorer and required to install another 
web browser, and for Microsoft to be required to distribute Internet 
Explorer only by selling it at a price that represents its cost of 
development. Do this for two or three years and we would have real 
competition restored to the browser market.
    The first Microsoft anti-trust trial failed to halt the company 
from continuing after the trial to abuse and expand its monopolies, 
and the second trial will have the same outcome if the present 
agreement is upheld.
    Sincerely,
    Les Brunswick



MTC-00009765

From: John Girt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been a significant user of Microsoft products for years. 
The existence of a single entity that can use unrestricted power to 
get its way is not in the best interest of our economy. I am a 
software developer myself, but couldn't even attempt to compete with 
Microsoft. I develop custom systems and use development tools from 
various vendors. My issue is my inability to convince many clients 
that non-Microsoft tools are better in many areas. Because of this, 
these innovative products do not get a chance in the market place. I 
truly believe that the best thing for consumers and Microsoft 
Shareholders, is it's immediate split-up. The original split-up 
suggestions are heard were way too soft. I recommend that it be 
split as follows.
    1.. Operating System and Networking software (including internet 
tools such as Internet Explorer.)
    2.. Development tools and databases (Visual Basic, compilers and 
SQL/Server)
    3.. Workgroup Tools (Exchange, Application Servers(.NET), 
Schedule Plus)
    4.. Desk-top applications (The Office Suite of productivity 
tools, games, etc.) Without fair competition innovation is stifled. 
As individual companies each would be able to flourish in their own 
realm. And after at least two years, they could be allowed to 
develop competing products. This would give them a better idea of 
the effort required to compete against one of there own existing 
products and would most likely result in better products for 
consumers.
    I have seen the quality of Microsoft products deteriorate due to 
the lack of competition. You can't even get help anymore with out 
talking to a staple. XP was supposed to be the best operating system 
ever yet they had a security hole in it that you could drive a truck 
through.
    AT&T share holders who held all of there original AT&T stock 
when it split have

[[Page 25202]]

increased their portfolio several fold. I think the same would 
happen with Microsoft stock. My wife and I hold several hundred 
shares of Microsoft stock and believe that it would help its value.
    Thank You
    John Girt
    John Girt & Associate
    (206)399-4977
    [email protected]



MTC-00009766

From: REYES,RAFAEL (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  1:43pm
Subject: MS settlement contrary to public interest
    Hello,
    I am a long time IT professional. I use Microsoft products very 
extensively and have done so through my career. I respect their 
products and feel they have done many things well.
    However, Microsoft's monopolistic practices are blatant, 
longstanding, and highly damaging. I still recall the false bug MS 
introduced in Windows 3.1 to cripple the superior DR DOS. 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Their bundling of products 
into their Windows operating system, where they have near complete 
control in the market, marches on unabated--squashing products 
should have the choice to use. Internet Explorer's dominance in the 
market over Netscape is a very recent case where their practices are 
blatant and now with Windows XP they continue their monopoly 
exercise with the bundling of their multi-media software (attacking 
RealPlayer), Passport, and Hailstorm. An operating system is an 
infrastructure distinct from the applications and it is long 
standing good programming practice that such components be ``loosely 
coupled'' to reduce unwanted interdependencies (and MS practiced 
this despite the baldfaced lie that Internet Explorer could not be 
removed from Windows).
    It is as if General Motors owned the highways and decided 
suddently to change the lane size, and not coincidentally, they are 
the only ones that sell cars that fit.
    The settlement does nothing to address these very serious 
issues. In fact all it does is incentivize the company to extend its 
monopoly into education - one of the few places which Microsoft has 
not yet taken over. As an IT professional and member of the general 
public I find the DOJ's settlement to be a grave disservice to the 
public.
    Rafael K Reyes
    Senior Systems Developer
    Content & Knowledge Management
    Hewlett-Packard
    650-960-5133
    CC:'attorney.general(a)po.state.ct.us'



MTC-00009767

From: Richard C. Wharton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:47pm
Subject: Proposed penalties
    Hello,
    I urge you to inflict severe penalties upon Microsoft for their 
past illegal activities. Merley stopping them from future crimes is 
insufficient. Criminals must not be allowed to keep their profits 
from past crimes.
    Please keep us computer users in mind. It is we who have been 
saddled with a Microsoft ``tax'' for the past 10 years.
    Respectfully,
    Richard C. Wharton
    Ibex Manufacturing, Inc.



MTC-00009768

From: David R. Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    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 R. Freeman



MTC-00009769

From: Doug Bostrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  1:57pm
Subject: U.S. vs Microsoft
    Greetings,
    I'd like to respectfully register my opposition to the Justice 
Department's proposed settlement of the U.S. vs. Microsoft case now 
in Judge Kollar-Kotelly's court. Microsoft has been found guilty of 
abuse of monopoly privileges, and Microsoft has amply demonstrated 
in the past that it is organically incapable of properly absorbing 
and implementing external guidance from judicial authority. The 
proposed settlement does little to mitigate the former circumstance, 
and in the latter is insufficiently informed by the prior experience 
of the Courts and Justice Department in their dealings with 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft will not look upon the settlement as a benchmark upon 
which to anchor their ethical roots. On the contrary, the settlement 
terms will be used as the sine qua non of ethics that can be 
expected of their company as identifiable under the terms of the 
settlement, which also fails to properly address compliance 
monitoring. Microsoft has a fundamentally different view of 
acceptable civic behavior, as evinced yet again by today's (Jan. 9, 
2002) disclosure that the corporation appears to have been 
systematically rigging user preference polls in a major information 
technology journal (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html).
    Having done a superlative job in the trials phase of this 
enormously expensive proceeding, it is imperative that the 
Department of Justice bring a firm and historically aware proposal 
for remedy to the table. The proposed settlement does not fulfill 
this mandate.
    Respectully yours,
    Douglas K. Bostrom
    CTO Amaroq Systems, Inc.
    www.amaroqsystems.com



MTC-00009770

From: Ray Kraft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:07pm
Subject: Opinion: microsoft settlement does not address problem 
sufficiently
    I would like to voice my concern over the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Given that Microsoft has been found 
*guilty* of violating antitrust law and abusing its power in the 
computer operating system market, I feel that the measures outlined 
in the settlement will do little to redress this problem. In fact, I 
believe that some proposed ``corrective'' measures (i.e. those 
addressed at schools) will in fact have just the opposite effect, 
and will serve to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly position.
    I would like to ask that more effective measures be proposed to 
bring about the changes required to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse its monopoly position.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond H. Kraft, Ph.D.
    Raymond Kraft, Ph.D. [email protected]
    Associate Technical Fellow 425-657-1348
    Applied Precision, Inc.
    Issaquah Washington, USA
    GnuPG Public Key Available: http://www.keyserver.net/en



MTC-00009771

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:08pm
Subject: Wrestling the 800-pound gorilla from Redmond
    Good Afternoon,
    As a person working in the technology field, it is practically 
impossible to go a day without hearing something about the battle 
currently raging in DC. Before today I resigned myself to be a 
casual observer. That was until I felt the time was approaching when 
you would have to weigh in with a decision. I would like to commend 
you on a valiant effort. Microsoft, I'm sure, was a surprise. They 
didn't appear to be as cunning or underhanded as the Bells, but 
certainly held their own. Mostly because our government was not 
ready to deal with a monopoly in such a new industry. An industry 
which is still growing. Next, let me say that public opinion is not 
good right now. Had the 9 states not protested, there would 
certainly have been a backlash. Which brings me to my point. I 
cannot even begin to imagine the amount of information you have to 
sift through on a daily basis, so I thought I would summarize what 
the tech community sees as the issues, and what it ignores:
    First, The Browser War is Dead!...and has been for some time. We 
have all moved on. I realize that it was at the core of the anti-
trust suit, but it does not need to be part of the settlement. I, 
like many others have been running alternative browsers on Windows 
for years. In fact, this letter is being written in Opera, which 
easily matches if not surpasses IE in all respects.
    Second, OEM is where we should be focusing. Microsoft has such a 
strangle hold on consumers because PC manufacturers are forced to 
build either Windows only machines, or Windows free machines. A move 
to curtail their OEM agreement would be a big step in the right 
direction.
    Finally, Who has really been hurt? The public?....sure, but more 
than that, the

[[Page 25203]]

competition. Why not repay them. Strip some cash from Microsoft and 
distribute it to the three major Linux Distributions, to Netscape, 
to Opera, to Apple, to anyone who can prove they have felt a 
negative impact in business. Provide money for advertising new, non-
Microsoft technology. Whatever you do....DO NOT allow them to donate 
Windows PCs to schools. I'm sure you also see this as a win/win for 
Microsoft as well as we do. Cash, however, would be great. Keep in 
mind that most Linux users are running the OS on machines 5 years or 
older. The OS is free, and the machines to run it can be collected 
for pennies at local charities. A much better deal for all 
concerned.
    All we want is a level playing field. As much as Microsoft 
threatens the stifling of innovation, you must stand firm. Everyone 
knows their products have flaws, major ones, in some cases. Yet they 
remain in power. Ask yourselves what measures can we put in place 
that would put Microsoft back under the control of the market rather 
than vise versa.
    The public must regain it's will to choose. Treat this like the 
tobacco settlement. The public is certainly addicted to a product 
that causes harm.
    I hope this helps.
    Thanks for your time,
    Chris Gregan
    Portland, OR



MTC-00009772

From: Robin McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement does not address the pivotal issue, which is 
that Microsoft has routinely indulged in unfair competitive 
practices, and has clearly signaled its intention to continue doing 
so in the future. It is difficult not to conclude that the court is 
either afraid of Microsoft for some reason, or expects to benefit 
directly from its own vapid decision.



MTC-00009773

From: Jim Kostrava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:22pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Case
To: United States Department of Justice,
    The purpose of this email is to encourage you to settle for once 
and for all the Microsoft Case.
    The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is the oldest free-
market educational organization in the world, founded by Leonard E. 
Read in 1946. FEEA is monthly magazine, Ideas on Liberty, is the 
longest continuously published magazine dedicated to individual 
liberty in the United States. FEE is a nonprofit organization 
dedicated to free markets, private property, self-reliance, limited 
government, and the rule of law.
    Since 1946 our organization has been supported entirely by 
private voluntary contributions. We receive no money from the 
government, nor would we accept money if offered. On behalf of our 
4,500 supporters and the tens of thousands of people who have 
supported us over the past 55 years that are passionate about 
individual liberty, I urge you to settle this particular case. I 
also encourage you to limit the intrusion of government in business 
in general. Barriers to initiative and endless litigation are the 
anchors on the economy and are the greatest threat to the prosperity 
of all U.S. citizens.
    In liberty,
    James E. Kostrava, CAE
    Vice President for External Relations
    Foundation for Economic Education
    30 South Broadway
    Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533
    (914) 591-7230, ext. 330
    Email- [email protected] mailto:jkostrava@ fee.org>
    Michigan: (989) 687-6367 Fax: (989) 687-9088
    FEE Web sites:
    www.fee.org http://www.fee.org>
    www.cliches.org http://www.cliches.org>
    www.freespeaker.org http://www.freespeaker.org>
    www.feenationalconvention.org http://www.feenational 
convention.org>
    www.laissezfairebooks.com http://www.laissezfairebooks.com>



MTC-00009774

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case without any further litigation. 
I believe this lawsuit has been harmful to consumers and the 
American economy. The very day it was announced the stock market 
went down and every time there is a negative statement about 
Microsoft it goes down again.
    It is obvious that those wealthy competitors of Microsoft who 
oppose the settlement don't care about the economy and welfare of 
our country as they oppose Microsoft giving the poor schools and 
children computers so they have the same opportunity as children in 
more well do do schools to learn and prepare themselves for their 
futures. Please put a stop to all litigations of this case.
    Thank you,
    Evelyn Moser



MTC-00009775

From: PETER CAPPOLA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement !
    Settle this Case!
    I believe this case should never have gotten this far. It should 
be thrown out of court.
    Let Microsoft Innovate and Grow this Industry. Consumers and the 
Our Country Benifit!
    The software industry is probably the strongest industry in this 
country. Instead of promoting it, its being torn apart by jeleous 
compeditors of Microsoft. Microsoft is the leading cause of the 
gains in technology this industry has had. Its speculation to say 
other businesses or competition would have emerged if Microsoft 
wasn't agressive in their innovative goals. The Industry could just 
as well be ten years behind if they didn't persue their innovative 
goals. Bundling is a good thing. I worked for 17+ years for a 
computer Mfg Co. and know the negative results of having to get 
different software products to work together and having to install 
software patches. This case is not in the CONSUMERS BEST INTEREST, 
its the compeditors who want to stop Microsoft from being succesful. 
What company every went in business to be Number Two!! Whats wrong 
with chairing for your own team to be the best!
    Why is Microsoft to be expected to have to write software to its 
competitions advantage and product and not specific to their own, 
Apple Computer has been doing that for years.
    Let Microsoft Innovate and Grow this Industry. Consumers and the 
Our Country Benifit!



MTC-00009776

From: Jim Smilanich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:42pm
Subject: I oppose the current settlement deal
    Sirs;
    I have worked for US Bank for 6 years in the Network department 
as a network architect. Before that, I worked for Merrill 
Corporation for 7 years as the lead network designer and network 
management specialist. During most of that period I have supported 
and used Microsoft products in a wide variety of ways. I have also 
had the opportunity to compare and contrast them to Microsoft's 
competition.
    I regard myself as about as hardcore a free market advocate as 
there can be. I believe, however, that a free market works only when 
all involved in it do so from an ethical viewpoint that embraces 
fair play. It is my contention that Microsoft's management has no 
conception of anything that even remotely resembles an ethical 
viewpoint. During my entire career in IT, I've watched with dismay 
as Microsoft eliminated one competitor after another in one market 
segment after another. In my experience, the finding of fact barely 
scratched the surface of the damage that Microsoft has done to the 
computer industry over the years. They did not do this by the 
quality of their product or by competing head to head. As the trial 
demonstrated quite clearly, they did so by arm twisting PC vendors, 
buying up the competition, predatory pricing tactics, and on and on 
and on.
    Microsoft has almost gleefully gone back to their old ways since 
the proposed settlement was announced. Brian Valentine's leaked 
emails (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23518.html) urging 
his sales force to spy on their customer base, their manipulation of 
a ZDNet Java vs. .Net poll (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html), Microsoft's announced pricing and licensing 
changes, and other stories all point to a monopolist company with 
absolutely no fear of the Federal government. None of the news that 
I have read since the original finding of fact shows any remorse 
over their actions. None of it even demonstrates an awareness that 
the company has been convicted of a crime!
    Please, take the high road. Find a punishment that fits the 
crime. The wholesale destruction of dozens of companies and market 
segments deserves a harsh and swift response.

[[Page 25204]]

    Thank you for your time,
    Jim Smilanich



MTC-00009777

From: Kevin Bischoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Company Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    The Microsoft Company has been in battle with its competitors in 
the marketplace and unfortunately with the federal government for 
too long. It is good news to the industry and to the nation's 
economy to know we are on the cusp of closure to at least the 
federal lawsuit.
    During this open public comment period I want to take the 
opportunity to support your Department in the fine job that you have 
done to find the compromise and reasonable end to this long drawn 
out million dollar experience. Please consider the settlement 
sufficient and close the federal government's role in this 
competitive war. I support your settlement proposal.
    Sincerely,
    Terry R. Spencer
    Utah State Senator
    District 22



MTC-00009778

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement was reasonable,fair and good for the 
consumer. HOWEVER the special interests are attempting to derail 
this settlement and prolong the litigation simply to benefit the few 
wealthy competitors of Microsoft. This is political posturing by the 
few States Attorney Generals who refused to sign on to the 
settlement. The only beneficiaries are the attorneys involved. The 
continuance of this case is NOT in the interests of the consumers 
for whom this law was originally crafted. The current settlement IS 
in the public interest. Please close the case.
    Margaret M. Lewis



MTC-00009779

From: Stephen Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    The anti-trust laws are a Marxist, pseudo-scientific danger to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Their standard of 
competition is equality, an economically destructive situation in 
which the most productive people will be destroyed for the alleged 
sake of the least productive. It is a nihilist attack on production 
and human life. Inequality is an economic good. Economics should 
benefit the individual as an individual, not equality, society or 
power-lust.
    Stephen Grossman



MTC-00009780

From: mjh48060
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:04pm
Subject: Regarding the Microsoft settlement
    After reading the details of the settlement I reached the 
opinion that a lot more must be done in order to insure that 
Microsoft doesn't abuse it's monopoly on the desktop operating 
system market. I've made an opinion regarding Windows XP Home 
Edition to friends and family and after discovering the e-mail 
address to the Department of Justice, I thought the comments I made 
to friends and family might be relevant here as well.
    If you're looking for a recommendation from me about Windows XP 
Home Edition, you won't see one from me. After playing around with 
it for a while I found a lot of issues....
    1. Internet Explorer is as unstable in XP as it is in Me / 98.
    2. Older DOS games either don't run well or don't run at all.
    3. Some Windows games don't run well or at all. (Including both 
32 bit and those older Win3.1 16 bit stuff)
    4. Printing is slower if you're doing anything else besides.
    5. Intermittant connection problems with the modem.
    6. Losing modem settings (Big Issue!)
    7. Recovery tools are either rudimentary or nonexistant. (Worse 
than Windows Millenium Edition)
    8. Still crashes from time to time--Microsoft says 'Bad 
Hardware' I say
    ``Software Bugs''
    --* XP Home Edition still can't make it to a day. Linux has so 
far made it to 1 day, and 17 hours and is still going. Nothing wrong 
with the hardware I say. ;-)
    9. It's claims of being the most secure operating system are a 
total lie! Network listening ports are open and unclosable--For 
example: Remote Procedure Call and Universal Plug and Play. Firewall 
is now mandatory for safety reasons I'm also noting the Universal 
Plug and Play security hole found just before Christmas. 
Interestingly it didn't show up on the Windows Update website until 
three weeks later.
    10. XP complains about deleting files in use when they're 
clearly --not-- in use! (Time to reboot.)
    11. That 8 second shift lock accessory feature that totally 
messes up the CAPS LOCK function. (Enabled by default.)
    12. XP sometimes refuses to read the CD-ROM (Time to reboot.)
    13. Microsoft compressed folders are a joke. Doesn't open on 
some zip files. Complains about file corruption that just isn't 
true.
    14. The new Windows look is nothing really special nor really 
customizable. Unix based operating systems were doing it better 
first.
    15. Opening a pictures folder shows a link under Folder tasks 
called: Order Prints Online. (Bad, bad form, Microsoft! Unlike some 
people, I order *-- NOTHING--* online if it involves a credit card. 
Surely online credit card theft still happens. )
    16. Product Activation. My issue with it is having to call 
Microsoft to ask for an activation code everytime I upgrade or have 
to reinstall XP. I feel that I simply don't need to ask permission 
to use something that I've paid for.
    17. Desktop screen disappears spontaneously and randomly when 
opening folders. ($80 billion dollars in their pocket and they still 
can't create a decent GUI shell since Windows 95? Whatever excuse it 
is I don't want to hear it! I want to drag and drop. Not cut, paste 
and pray! What's the problem with that?)
    18. Plug and Play is still problematic.
    19. That general stupid AOL feeling I get. However I like my 
face and name on top of the Start Menu. However the user interface 
is far too dumbed down for my taste. I can still use the classic 
interface and remove that AOL feeling but I lose my face, too.
    20. XP Home Full version is overpriced. Upgrade version could be 
more reasonable, too.
    21. Upgrading over 98 / Me causes lots and lots of problems with 
breaking programs already installed beforehand. Every program broken 
has to be reinstalled. Best idea for this problem is to repartition 
and install XP on a new partition and leave the old 98 / Me intact. 
(Dual booting gives a lot of flexibility with new and old stuff but 
it's also a hard drive hog not to mention a huge waste of time to 
set up!)
    22. EZ CD Creator 4 screws up XP. Roxio's recommended upgrade is 
way overpriced! And you --still-- have to download a patch! I was 
never even told about the issue nor was I able to find out about the 
issue with the Microsoft web site until after the damage was done. 
(Smells like a dirty marketing trick to me.)
    23. Product support is given but on the condition that you have 
to sign up for a .NET Passport first. (Which is absolutely 
rediculous! It --NEVER-- said that on the packaging!)
    24. The recovery console is useless in a real problem.
    25. I cannot remove Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, Windows 
Messenger, Windows Media Player, and a lot of other Microsoft 
programs that are installed by default as well as the loss of hard 
disk space incurred from the use or lack of use of those programs.
    26. I want to choose what kind of operating system I want on my 
computer when I buy a computer. So far the only way I can buy a 
computer and have a choice of operating system is to buy the 
components necessary to put together a computer from different 
sources so I don't have to purchase a Microsoft operating system. 
For example, I may want Linux or FreeBSD or BeOS or whatever may be 
available but if I buy components to assemble a computer from one 
source. I'm told that I need to purchase a Microsoft operating 
system. I simply do not have to accept that in my opinion. Simply 
put, I feel that as a customer I was misled, lied to, and ultimately 
swindled out of money when I installed XP Home Edition. I also feel 
that Microsoft's business practices are completely horrible and 
warrant punitive measures to keep the company in check up to and 
including splitting the company as necessary to bring real 
innovation to computer technology as a whole.

[[Page 25205]]

    Sincerely yours,
    Michael Hickey



MTC-00009781

From: Donna Ulrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:06pm
Subject: Get off the case
    Dear Friends,
    We've got more important things to do. I'm sure Microsoft is not 
perfect but then neither is the government. Let's build our 
families. Let's reduce poverty, feed the hungry--around the world.
    Let's focus on more important things.
    Donna Ulrich
    10770 S. Voyles Road
    Borden, IN 47106-7615



MTC-00009782

From: Mark Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:06pm
Subject: The current settlement with MicroSoft is bad for 
competition and for the nation
    Hello!
    MicroSoft is evil. That is a given. Given all the lies they have 
said in court over the years, you cannot trust anythng they say. 
Thus, how can you trust the settlement?
    MicroSoft was probably going to give 1 billion dollars to 
schools anyways. Then the settlement says they have to, which 
doesn't make any sense, because they were probably going to do it 
anyways. MicroSoft has always tried to grab the educational 
institutions, because when people graduate from high school or 
college, they will stick with the software they know.
    Thus:
    1. They were already going to do it anyways.
    2. It inteferes with Apple's ability to compete in the education 
market. MicroSoft is entirely evil and I would prefer, be destroyed. 
I would like to see it get destroyed under a competitive market, 
rather than physcial force. I like to win my battles fairly. Given 
the current republican administration, please do what makes the most 
sense for a competitive market, which you should understand since 
you are republican, and just don't so stuff that benefits the rich 
fat republicans/corporations who have no regard for our nation, just 
their pocketbook. I want business to thrive for those who deserve 
it, not those who are able to bribe/lie/cheat/steal their way into 
power because they have a lot fo money.
    Thanks!
    Mark



MTC-00009783

From: JOHN T MUDGE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  2:43pm
Subject: Comment re: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
    Microsoft is clearly guilty of illegal conduct--that has been 
decided in court. I, personally, do not like either Windows or 
Explorer. Even so, their products define the standard. That battle 
is over (I use a Mac). Nonetheless, the Court should dismiss State 
objections. The State AG's are clearly protecting in-state 
businesses or, in at least one case, purely vindictive. I am amazed 
they even have standing! If the noose is tightened even more, it 
sets a poor precedent to harass even more businesses.
    Unfortunately, this country is coming closer to getting all the 
government for which we are paying!
    Glad to get this off my chest.
    John T. Mudge
    Chehalis, WA 98532



MTC-00009784

From: Brent Smith
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  2:10pm
Subject: Opposition of Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing today to express my personal displeasure with the 
settlement terms between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
corporation. I have been a user of Microsoft products since 1985 and 
I'm even have status of a Microsoft Certified Professional using 
Windows NT. Over the years as consultant and a long time user of 
these products I honestly have to admit that I make a living trying 
to find workarounds to make products work for my customers with the 
windows operating system. For this I thank Microsoft for having a 
product that isn't as stable as let say UNIX or the Mac OS9.
    If we look at history--look at what happened after the DOJ split 
up IBM. IBM is still a very large company, but because of 
competition (thanks to the DOJ) much of our products are developed 
better today. I feel that there is continued motivation to compete 
and have a quality product when competition is present.
    Thank you.
    Brent Smith
    Client Manager
    RMRS-ECHO
    www.rmrs.com--website
    [email protected]



MTC-00009785

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:18pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to register my concurrance with the DOJ's recent 
Settlement action. Based on the information provided via the press 
the terms seem fair and reasonable. I think it is important to 
finalize the settlement to allow everyone involved to move forward 
with some predicability. Additionally, the software/internet service 
playing field is and has evolved so quickly and constantly, I am 
confident that with the system checks to be put in place, the free 
markets will allow businesses and consumers to choose the most 
appropriate technologies and providers for the future.
    Furthermore, I think it is very important that Microsoft not be 
singled out as being anti-competitive. All its' competitors are 
likewise working to gain any and all advantages. To do so will risk 
constraining innovation here in the U.S., and might help a business, 
particularly a non-homegrown business gain a competitive advantage 
they did not deserve or earn.
    Bob Nelson Geneva, IL



MTC-00009786

From: David Benander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I want you people to understand that you must LEAVE MICROSOFT 
ALONE!!! You must not punish companies and creators like Bill Gates 
for being more successful than their competitors. That's why it's 
called competition! Someone wins and someone loses. And in so 
winning, Gates and his team have helped make PC use so inexpensive 
that we, the consumers, can all use them. Microsoft is PRIVATE 
PROPERTY, it has a RIGHT to its profits, and you have NO right to 
confiscate them.
    David Benander
    194 Bay Lane
    Centerville, MA 02632



MTC-00009787

From: jeremy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:22pm
Subject: public comment on Microsoft anti-trust case
    Ms. Renata Hesse--
    As a citizen of the United States I'm very disturbed by the 
settlement proposal of the Microsoft antitrust case. Given the 
verdicts of a federal judge and federal appeals court judges 
affirming the basic guilt of Microsoft as a monopoly, I think the 
proposed DOJ settlement does NOT go far enough to remedy the 
situation. As a consumer I believe my choices have been limited by 
the monopoly and am disappointed the settlement does little to 
change that fact. Moreover, I'm concerned by a weak enforcement 
mechanism to assure the enforcement of the provisions, ineffective 
as they are. Even rigidly enforced, I have grave doubts the 
provisions would accomplish anything positive.
    I suspect the Bush administration is concerned about expending 
taxpayer money in litigation. At this point, if this settlement were 
approved, I would think it a bigger waste of money; to have come so 
far and proved so much only to opt for a weak settlement that does 
not prevent Microsoft from leveraging its monopoly in the future is 
futile and non-sensical. To make the investment worthwhile, as a US 
citizen, I think a new settlement should be put in play that is 
designed to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its monopoly to the 
detriment of competition. At this point, only a new, tougher remedy 
proposal would make the litigation worthwhile and useful to me as a 
citizen of the United States, a consumer, and personal computer 
user. Additionally, my concern is that given the present economic 
situation, the Bush administration is concerned that by pursuing a 
tough remedy that it would hurt a big, successful company and 
therefore do more damage to a fragile economy. Personally, I believe 
that by breaking up Microsoft it would unlock more shareholder 
value. The sum of all shares in the new companies would be worth 
more than the present value of one Microsoft. Additionally, I 
believe it would create more jobs in a hurting tech sector as more

[[Page 25206]]

programming and administrative staff are hired by the new companies. 
I also think it would envigorate the tech sector as more small 
companies find an atmosphere where they can compete and introduce 
new products and technologies that have a better chance at success. 
In short, please pursue a tougher remedy that will prevent Microsoft 
from leveraging its monopoly and create more competition and 
consumer choice. Please reconsider your position and advocate a 
stronger remedy that will truly bring the technology industry to a 
new level of innovation and competition.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Wilmarth



MTC-00009788

From: Tim Bryce
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/9/02  3:41pm
Subject: Not in Favor of Settling with Microsoft
Renata B. Hesse
    I am a user of the OS/2 operating system from IBM. I have found 
this to be a technologically superior product over the operating 
systems offered by Microsoft, including their latest version, 
Windows XP. Unfortunately, OS/2 has been in decline for a number of 
years from what I believe to be unfair monopolistic marketing 
tactics of Microsoft. As a result, vendors of OS/2 related products 
have also diminished over the years. Contrary to arguments by 
Microsoft that their products encourage competition, I believe the 
opposite is true; that Microsoft's marketing practices actually 
discourages competition and stunts technological growth.
    Consequently, I do not believe the Federal Government's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, in its current form, is adequate and that 
stricter measures be imposed on the company to prohibit such tactics 
from being used in the future. In other words, I applaud the efforts 
of the various State Attorney Generals to seek stricter measures.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Bryce
    Editor, OS/2 CONNECT
    http://www.os2ss.com/connect/
    [email protected]
    Palm Harbor, FL, USA



MTC-00009789

From: Richard M. DeLio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Re. the Microsoft settlement, please convey my views to the 
court as follows:
    As an Information Systems Consultant and a heavy user of 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft PC products, as well as software on 
other platforms, I can honestly say that Microsoft has brought much 
more positive progress to the information systems user community 
than any other computer hardware or software company. With regard to 
many of the points brought out in trial, I would offer the following 
comments:
    1. Monopoly is a matter of frame of reference. If you ask if 
Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system business for Intel-
based computers, they do. If you base the definition on the absolute 
number of computers, irrespective of size, Microsoft may still have 
a monopoly. I believe both of these definitions to be incorrect. I 
would propose that for a monopoly to exist, it should be based on 
total computing utilization throughout the US or the world. Yes, 
Microsoft has a large number of installed operating systems, and 
some are installed on computers with relatively high raw computing 
power. But many of these computers are used for a short period of 
time each day or few days and then often just to send e-mail or surf 
the Internet, clearly not ``computing.'' If one were to compare the 
operating systems installed against the utilized computing power, I 
would doubt any monopoly exists. On PC's doing very little computing 
there are a very large number of Windows installations, but on much 
larger, heavily used machines you would find IBM, Sun and Hewlett-
Packard installations. Simply put, Microsoft does not have a 
monopoly based on the total utilization of computing power. This is 
a very important difference.
    2. Microsoft competitors have argued that Windows pricing is 
higher than it should be. I would counter that most people pay far 
less, through OEM installation of MS Windows, than the suggested 
retail price, or even the ``street'' retail upgrade price. However, 
on pricing, I believe we need to place things in perspective. For 
anywhere from $40-100, based on the version of Windows installed, 
the consumer receives a technically advanced product which will be 
used on average 4-5 years before a new computer is purchased. In 
comparison, a pair of brand-name sneakers cost more than Windows and 
will likely be wreaked within 1 year. There is not a single consumer 
product of any type on the market today that provides the 
functionality of Windows in comparison with its cost over the life 
of the product.
    In addition, Microsoft, unlike any other computer industry 
company in the last year, increased its research and development 
budget to provide even greater benefit to the consumer in the 
future. The money spent by consumers on Microsoft products provided 
both immediate benefits to the consumers, greater in value than any 
other computer product, and an investment in future benefits.
    3. Much has been said of Microsoft's supposedly predatory 
practices re. Netscape Communications. Nothing has been said of 
Netscape's actions during this period. Prior to Microsoft's release 
of Internet Explorer (MS IE), Netscape had been giving away its 
Navigator Internet browser. When it effectively had a monopoly in 
the browser arena, just prior to the release of MS IE, Netscape 
announced that they would be charging for this product in the 
future. Essentially, they created a monopoly and then attempted 
predatory pricing. And, the price they wanted to charge was 
approximately what most people were paying at that time for all of 
Microsoft Windows, a product with far great functionality, and 
therefore value, for the money. I should also add that the Netscape 
personnel did not develop their product from scratch. They had been 
working on an Internet browser in a college environment, and simply 
left, formed a company, made a few changes and released it under the 
Netscape name.
    4. Microsoft did not initially try to compete with Netscape. In 
fact, Microsoft competes in a very small number of computer software 
product areas, choosing instead to offer Windows as an open base on 
which thousands of products can operate. Netscape personnel, 
however, announced at trade show after trade show that they would 
``destroy'' Microsoft Windows as a platform. The Internet would be 
the new platform--actually a ridiculous idea, like saying if mass 
transit had great schedules we would all get rid of our cars. 
Microsoft attempted to work with Netscape and when that went 
nowhere, it decided to offer a better product and cut off the 
Netscape attempt at predatory pricing.
    5. Microsoft competitors have argued that Internet Explorer was 
a standalone application and should never have been put into the 
Windows operating system. I believe this is wrong. I believe there 
is a very simple test for what is appropriate in an operating system 
and what is not. If a program creates or manipulates data, like a 
word processor or spreadsheet program it is an application and 
should not be added to an operating system. If a program simply 
displays information or manipulates data at the file level, e.g. 
copying or moving an entire file, it should be included in an 
operating system. In fact, the only times Microsoft has violated 
this approach was when they provided a very rudimentary word 
processor in Windows as a convenience to users, but not to replace a 
complete word processor, and a simple e-mail program (which still 
needed an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to be usable).
    Regardless of this, anyone who wished to have Netscape Navigator 
as their default Internet browser could do so, simply by specifying 
that within the program of their Internet Service Provider or, even 
more simply, by placing the Navigator program on the Start-Programs 
list as he/she would do with any other program--word processor, 
spreadsheet, photo editing, etc.--and then having Navigator 
telephone the ISP.
    6. But at the heart of this litigation from the beginning has 
been the hypocrisy and manipulation by Microsoft's competitors 
combined with a bluntly terrible defense by Microsoft. The 
competition has used the government to try to compete against 
Microsoft rather than relying on an open marketplace. And, the 
dissenting nine states are still being used by Microsoft's 
competitors. I would ask the current judge to ask one simple 
question regarding these nine states: Would they be suing Microsoft 
it Microsoft were based in their states. I strongly doubt that. They 
don't care one iota for their consumers; they only care about the MS 
competitors who are based in their states and exercise political 
influence.
    Competitors like AOL, Oracle, Sun and IBM have long complained 
that Microsoft has produced mediocre products and did not deserve 
its success. Yet, with the exception of Oracle, Microsoft's products 
often exceeded the functionality and value of those provided by the 
competition. The consumer is not stupid. Offered a better product, 
with better pricing, the consumer will go with the

[[Page 25207]]

better product. Often the consumer will go with the better product 
even without better pricing, since we are not talking about large 
sums of money for these products (tens of dollars to hundreds, not 
thousands).
    Competitors have complained that Windows is a closed system and 
source code should be opened for all to see or modify. The truth is 
that Windows is the most open operating system ever produced. If it 
were not, there would not be literally thousands of non-Microsoft 
products operating very successfully under Windows today.
    7. The bottom line of all of this, however, is that Microsoft 
has been successful because they have provided a good, reasonably 
priced product, which is an open environment on which thousands of 
computer programs are available. In addition, Microsoft has provided 
a platform with integration of subsystems which should be in an 
operating system, yet, not eliminating the ability of the user to 
run alternative products.
    I urge the court to find in favor of Microsoft and the 
settlement with the Department of Justice, a settlement which, I 
believe, is even more burdensome on Microsoft than it should be.
    Thank you.
    Richard M. DeLio
    31 Manor Drive
    Ramsey, NJ 07446
    201-825-8098



MTC-00009790

From: Scott Bicknell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is much chatter about this case--most of it saying that 
the DOJ is caving-in to Microsoft. I have to agree. And while there 
should be a penalty, I also realise that this wish is a pipe dream.
    This case is moving toward dismissal. I understand Microsoft has 
already been convicted, but it seems after the conviction was handed 
down that the court said, ``Oops, that's not what we meant to do. 
Now you boys go out back and find a way to fix this mistake. We use 
too much Microsoft software around here to deal with breaking up a 
company we do so much business with.''
    And that is the crux of the matter, whether the courts, the DOJ, 
Microsoft, or anyone else wants to admit it. As long as major pieces 
of judicial infrastructure (the software used to administer the 
judicial system) comes from one company, Microsoft, then the courts 
will never have the guts to do their job honestly. They will 
continue to pretend to themselves and the world that they are immune 
to bias.
    Scott Bicknell
    815 Creek Dr.
    San Jose, CA 95125
    (408) 266-9692



MTC-00009791

From: Del Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:49pm
Subject: end clinton's
    Please end clinton's anti-trust law abuse. Microsoft has done 
more for computing than any other company--leave them alone. No more 
law suits against them.
    Sincerely,
    (Mrs.) Del W. Gardner
    Medford NJ



MTC-00009792

From: AVCS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:50pm
Subject: Anti-trust law abuse
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    Let us end the Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse.



MTC-00009793

From: tatro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End the Clinton-era Anti-trust Law abuse, please. It was a waste 
of time and money.
    Elwood & Ellen Tetrault,
    907 S 19 St.,
    Grand Forks, N.D. 58201



MTC-00009794

From: Bryan W. Headley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    Dear Sirs,
    From what I understand, the bulk of the Microsoft punishment 
involves the donation of computers and software to school districts. 
As someone who lives in a school district that's teetering on 
consolidation (e.g., bankrupcy), let me tell you that giving school 
districts computers is not a beneficial act. With more computers, 
classrooms either have to be built or expanded to handle the extra 
equipment. More teachers have to be hired, and this is money we do 
not have. To be honest with you, we don't have the money to do 
extracurricular activities (e.g., football, basketball, etc.)
    This is like other well-intentioned attempts to help schools: in 
Illinois, we have the state lottery benefitting schools by helping 
on infrastructure costs. The Americans with Disabilities act hurt, 
as the costs of making the existing plants accessible wasn't covered 
by this. And so, I ask you: what good are plants (buildings) when 
you cannot afford the headcount? When you cannot afford the 
materials? A lot of people do not understand how taxation works, in 
regards to municipal governments. Looking at my area, you'd assume 
there's a sufficient tax base. Not so: we have densly-populated 
residential, with little industry. So, where's the tax base for that 
school district? The base for students is evident.
    So, the act of public service is not beneficial. Unless we're 
talking about schools that are well-financed, but for some reason do 
not have computer education. I cannot imagine schools operating in 
such a vacuum. Having mentioned industries, let's expound on the 
behaviour Microsoft has been accused (and found guilty of.) By 
engaging in predatory tactics, Microsoft weaken many of their 
competitors. Consider WordPerfect, once of Orem, UT. They used to 
have a successful product; their employees and they were in a 
position where they can contribute to the economic health of their 
neighborhoods. Now gone, who has stepped up to take their place in 
filling the tax coffers?
    Now, let's go into what I'm certain a lot of writers have 
pointed out to you: allowing Microsoft to pay off their debt to 
society in Microsoft software. This is more effective in 
establishing brand identity with the next generation of software 
users than any advertising I know of. What's the cost of the 
software? Are they writing this software off at full retail cost? Do 
you know how much it costs to mass produce CDs in quantity? Pennies.
    I'm trying to think of something as distasteful as this 
settlement. This is not an exact simile, but I have to think of a 
dope pusher being forced to give free illicit drugs to children. 
What? You think those children WON'T want more dope? And, heh! This 
pusher gets to write off the expense, having been directed to 
performing this community service by judge.
    If you are of a mind to go for a financial settlement, do like 
you did with the tobacco companies: make the company settle in cash. 
How the states opt to use the cash is something we can work on 
ourselves. I might never see any of that money appear in my school 
district, but we might get better roads and be able to attract/
retain industries. By the way, regards to these computers: where are 
they coming from? China, Taiwan, Indonesia? That hardly helps out 
American manufacturing firms who make computers. And you know, the 
healthier these industries are, the better able they are to 
contribute to our local economy. As it stands now, we'd be better 
served if you forced the Microsoft board of directors to personally 
take roadside cleaning responsibilities for a 1/2 mile off of an 
interstate in Seattle.
    Thank you for you time and consideration,
    Bryan W. Headley
    [email protected]



MTC-00009795

From: gandamartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As two tax-paying citizens, we believe that the resources of the 
Justice Dept can be put to better use than pursuing Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Mr & Mrs Gene Martin



MTC-00009796

From: Ian Nowland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hello!
    I am a computer programmer. I (and all my programming friends 
and coworkers) have to work several times harder to get anything 
done because Microsoft's products are usually much more shoddy than 
any other software out there, since they know they can rum out such 
products because they have such a huge market domination. Please 
break up Microsoft so that they are forced to be competitive and 
thus try and meet competition standards.
    Ian Nowland



MTC-00009797

From: Andrew Davis

[[Page 25208]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement with federal government
    6308 Woodcreek Trail
    Fort Worth, Texas 76179
    January 9, 2002

    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between the federal government and Microsoft. It is with sincere 
hope that there will be no further litigation at the federal level. 
Taking into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did not 
get off with a slap on the wrist. In fact, Microsoft is left to make 
several significant changes to the ways that they now handle 
business. For example, Microsoft has agreed to design future 
versions of Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows 
XP, to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers, and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove 
access to features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. 
Consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time.
    With the many terms of the agreement, it is time to put this 
case to rest. The settlement offers a strong resolution to this 
suit, and I look forward to seeing the settlement implemented.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Davis



MTC-00009798

From: pankavichjm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the it is in the public interest to settle with 
the Microsoft litigation. Personally, I find it hard to see how they 
were in violation at all. As far as I am concerned I always had the 
choice of using them or not.
    However, I do believe that AOL is in some kind of violation in 
this respect. Whenever I load a program that also offers AOL I 
refuse the AOL but no matter I still get their program on my screen 
and it does start to load. I also think that they are in violation 
when they include free programs in cereals, etc. and send them 
through the mail. They are bordering on being a nuisance.
    Joan M. Pankavich



MTC-00009800

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    It is time to go on with more important business than litigation 
in this case. The Dept. Of Justice proposed settlement is fair for 
consumers and the company. This case has been detrimental to 
Microsoft and its employees. The vagaries have caused many employees 
to quit and as shareholders we do not see the drive to innovate the 
company was famous for. If the various State Atty. who object the 
settlement proposed by DoJ like to see a second rate company survive 
I believe we should have recourse for such stupid behavior. I, a 
small consumer, am perfectly happy with the product developed by 
Microsoft.
    Respectfully submitted
    Axel Hunold



MTC-00009801

From: Ruth Zdanowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    We think that the prolonged, ongoing litigation against 
Microsoft, by a few special interest groups with biased agendas to 
promote their own products, needs to come to an end.
    The economy has suffered enough with stock market blows to the 
``tech'' industry. Get on with business.
    A settlement was offered; we think it is extremely generous. Get 
on with business and life! The states that will not compromise 
continue to mire the entire industry, which affects all of the U.S. 
economy and attitude.
    Our capitalistic society depends upon survival of the best 
product (i.e. fittest) to increase competition and innovation. Fault 
sits in the laps of those who have not produced a good product--or 
at least one a consumer majority is motivated to purchase.
    It is essential in a democratic/capitalistic society that we all 
work hard to succeed and be innovative. The continued ``whining'' by 
those who refuse to settle reminds us of a sport team that complains 
about everybody else when they lose. A team either makes the right 
number of baskets or leave the basketball court. Is our nation's 
justice department going to support a business welfare system where 
the stronger companies have to ``pay'' lackluster companies (or the 
states that house them) in order to subsidize them?
    If Microsoft's competitors spent half as much time and money on 
innovation and subsequently better products, as they do hiring 
attorneys to whine for them, they might actually become successful. 
It is time to stop supporting the so-called ``victims'' who want 
easy buck$$.
    PLEASE: Stop this muckraking!
    Sincerely,
    Consumers and small business owners who appreciate quality, 
manufacturing responsibility, and accountability,
    Jim & Ruth Zdanowicz



MTC-00009802

From: Bruce F McKenzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:36pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    As a Senior Vice President of a large financial institution, I 
am greatly concerned about the Proposed Final Settlement for 
Microsoft with the Dept. of Justice. My primary concern, as far as I 
understand the agreement, is that it does not end Microsoft's 
existing monopoly or punish sufficiently past violations of 
antitrust laws (as the courts have affirmed), does not adequately 
address anticompetitive behavior identified by the appeals court and 
does not have sufficient provisions for enforcement of the 
agreement. Overall, it's hard for me to see how this is in the 
public's interest.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce F. McKenzie
    Northern Trust Company



MTC-00009803

From: Bob and Ruth Ferguson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a U. S. citizen, I am strongly opposed to a continuation of 
the lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., one of the finest Corporations 
in this Country.
    I am particularly critical of our Justice system which permits a 
four year lawsuit to continue, particularly since the Federal 
Government seemed to arrive at a satisfactory settlement, which then 
permits the 'States'' to continue this process.
    The Federal Government and Microsoft agreed to permit oversight 
of their operations, and this should be sufficient. The cost to all 
parties must be astronomical, and to continue this suit is certainly 
detrimental and costly. The Federal Government should rein in the 
``States'', and finalize this once and for all.
    Robert A. Ferguson



MTC-00009804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is fair and equitable and in the best 
interests of the consumer. It is time for this litigation to be 
ended.
    Richard Ketover
    Boca Raton, FL



MTC-00009805

From: Dennis Ertzbischoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:55pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs:
    For what's it's worth, here is my 2 cents about the proposed 
breakup. . .DON'T!!!
    In the 1930's and 40's, the U.S. Government prohibited Motorola 
from entering the land-line based communications industry by 
connecting to it with its radio-based systems, thus protecting AT&T. 
Think, where would all of our technology be today if the government 
had not interfered and had let the Free Market work its magic?
    Today, we have the most successful software provider in the 
world facing a government action. When will bureaucrats learn that 
they cannot make proper decisions when it comes to market forces--no 
matter if they, the bureaucrats, are pro-competition or pro-
monopoly? Stay out of business and market decisions. . .LAISSEZ-
FAIRE.
    Technology, especially, moves extremely quickly and no one, 
repeat, no one can stop that from happening.
    Let's get on with the business of ADVANCING civilization, not 
retarding it.
    Hey, get out there and read WEALTH OF NATIONS, ATLAS SHRUGGED, 
and WIZARD: THE STORY OF NICHOLA TESLA.

[[Page 25209]]

Then, let your mind work and see how narrow the viewpoints of 
bureaucrats generally are and how those viewpoints have damaged 
mankind's creativity.
    As for Mr. Gates. . .GO, BILL, GO!!!
    Sincerely;
    Dennis Ertzbischoff
    Detroit



MTC-00009806

From: Tricia (038) Ambrose Treacy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the insanity. Microsoft has been open to a fair settlement 
in this case. The pro-longed wranglings of a few special interest 
groups, and/or a few companies that are anti-Microsoft is costing 
the taxpayers too much money--AND IT ONLY STIFLES CREATIVITY, 
INNOVATION and COMPETITION. Please put an end to further litigation 
and get on with the resolution.
    Tricia Treacy



MTC-00009807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:01pm
    Please end this ridiculous lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft 
has made us better and we go after them.
    Let's just stick with finding Osoma Bin Ladan. He's only 
interested in making us worse.
    Thanks, Lezlie Baska



MTC-00009808

From: Ed Harman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My letter is attached . . . thank you.
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw,Ed HotMail
    Edward Harman 14 Pinewood Avenue
    Ephrata, PA 17522
    January 8, 2002

    Attorney General Mr. John Ashcroft
    Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The recent lawsuit in the antitrust case between Microsoft and 
the U.S. Department of Justice, which finally came to an end in 
November, reflected personal vendettas from competitors and 
politicians alike. I strongly believe litigation never should have 
begun in the first place, but I am happy to see that Microsoft will 
not be broken up. It does, however, trouble me to see that this 
settlement is mired in procedural sludge. I ask you to enact this 
coherent and important settlement as soon as possible.
    Microsoft has been a leader in innovation and technology in the 
industry and has set the standards for fast paced growth. Microsoft 
continually delivers new products and services that are unmatched by 
its peers. Being the hardest working and most creative company in 
the technology sector should not be a negative mark against the 
Microsoft name.
    I look forward to no further litigation against Microsoft and 
urge the US Justice Department to convince the nine states 
withholding to discontinue their efforts against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Harman
    CC: Sen. Rick Santorum



MTC-00009809

From: Derek Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft's Windows XP & privacy
    Our state AG's office encouraged me to forward my complaints to 
you regarding MS Windows XP. my complaint isn't about the current 
issues with MS, but with their new Windows XP product. I believe 
their activation policy and procedure is an unwarrented intrusion 
into my privacy, and my right to control my own computer as I see 
fit. When XP is installed, it takes an inventory of your computer's 
hardware, and then sends this information to MS, which then 
activates your copy of XP.
    They say no personally identifying information is sent.
    That's troubling because if you register your copy with MS, they 
can easily match activation codes with personal information 
contained in a registration data base. Given MS's behavior over the 
last two decades, it is not unreasonable to be dubious that MS will 
not attempt to so. There is no assurance , except their word, that 
they will not do it.
    Another problem comes when you change hardware in your computer. 
If I put in a new cpu, memory modules or motherboard, XP deactivates 
itself until you call MS and get a re-activation number.
    My complaint is that once I've activated XP, MS doesn't have a 
right to know what I do with the hardware on my computer. Their 
attitude about it is incredible. About a month ago, I put in new 
memory chips, and had to re-activate XP. When I called MS, their 
agent said, ``So what are we doing today?'' Almost as if I need 
their permission to do something to my computer. It is extremely 
intrusive, and goes far beyond what's necessary to protect against 
software piracy.
    I'm not the only one complaining about this. There are thousands 
across the country who voice concern and dissent over MS's procedure 
here, but must rely on the DOJ to advocate for their fundamental 
rights.
    Obviously, the DOJ has misjudged MS. The current settlement that 
was reached with them has done nothing to cause the company to act 
with restraint. The proof of the inadequacy of the settlement is 
that with Windows XP they show a blanant disregard the right to 
privacy, believing that they are entitled to know what you do with 
your personal computer. Clearly, MS is showing us where it is they 
intend to take us: complete control over your personal computer. 
They have just purchased QWest's internet system, and will be able 
to leverage internet access as well. I guarantee that their next 
step will be to force people to buy MSN in order to use Windows, all 
the while claiming that MSN is part of the operating system.
    It's a sad commentary federal and state governments are allowing 
MS to get away with such behavior. Big Brother has arrived, but it's 
not the government, it's Microsoft.
    I appreciate your time.
    Thank you,
    Derek Mason
    Smithfield, UT



MTC-00009810

From: Harvey I. Salwen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:1lpm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Harvey and Jean Salwen PO Box 363 817 Brushtown Road Gwynedd 
Valley, PA 19437
    January 9, 2002

    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been a computer user since 1980 and clearly remember 
having 7 operating systems for my computer. There was one for each 
application. Microsoft eliminated the agony and chaos. Please honor 
the in-place agreement that will allow you, Microsoft, and the rest 
of the country get back to work. There are more important things to 
do. cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Harvey Salwen



MTC-00009811

From: charlie e guest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I believe the time has come to settle the Microsoft case. I have 
no earthly way of knowing all the facts in this. I do know that some 
of the states have agreed to settle and I think the Department 
should do just that. See to it that they all agree and you gentlemen 
and ladies get back to your business. This has gone on long enough. 
It has taken a toll on the taxpayer. I am not even sure they did 
anything wrong, but you are in a better position to determine that.
    Thank you for your time. Have a good new year.
    Charles Guest
    [email protected]



MTC-00009812

From: Joseph Heck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice.
    While I applaud the Department of Justice's efforts to settle 
the suit with Microsoft in a fashion that won't require eternal 
oversight by the courts, I am deeply concerned with some of the 
articles in the proposed final settlement.
    In particular I believe there should be swifter and harsh 
penalties for Microsoft if there is any complaint from a member of 
the Technical Committee.
    Microsoft has clearly shown in the past that it has little 
regard for the court's directives, which has directly led to this 
case, and that it's familiar with all legal standings to stall the 
courts of the United States in such

[[Page 25210]]

a manner as to accomplish it's desired effects, even at some later 
pain to itself. Because of it's monopoly status, it can withstand 
significantly more derailing than many middle-ware application 
companies, and it could easily drive competitors in this space out 
of business before the courts could muster themselves to act.
    It would be exceptionally worthwhile to define in the proposed 
remedies wether or not Internet Explorer was a part of the Operating 
system, simply for the purpose to defining if it is considered 
``microsoft middleware'', and hence removable, or to have API's with 
which developers can communicate and interoperate.
    In addition, I believe there should be some explicit mention of 
other middleware programs currently being subtly integrated into 
Microsoft's product offering: Microsoft Messenger, Windows Media 
Player--and which match past microsoft actions to integrate what I 
consider middleware technologies into the operating system. Again, 
the purpose would be to define wether or not these should be able to 
be explicitly removed or API's provided to developers for 
interaction.
    Finally, there was some significant press regarding a punative 
action against microsoft involving the court-ordered disbursement of 
software & hardware to support education in the United States. I 
believe firmly that if this action is deemed nessecary that the 
courts will modify the specifications of the demand such that 
Microsoft is required to fund the needs of educational institutions 
without any control over what technologgies they may choose to 
utilitze and/or deploy. I viewed the initial reports of this 
disbursement with significant trepidation, as it honestly appeared 
to be an action which would effectively be a government sanctioned 
extension of the Microsoft desktop monopoly.
    Thank you for reviewing my comments and taking them into 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Heck
    302 Garfield St.
    Seattle, WA 98109
    [email protected]



MTC-00009813

From: Griffis, Tom
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft `settlement'
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Since the Supreme Court has affirmed the lower courts decision 
that found that Microsoft was guilty of violating our anti-trust 
laws, I feel that Microsoft should be punished in accordance with 
the laws and precedents concerning same.
    The proposed `settlement' currently before the court is a sham, 
that does little more than slap the wrist of Microsoft. Bill Gates 
and company are dancing in the halls with glee and visions of owning 
the world, as it relates to desktop computers and software.
    Since the illegal practices utilized by Microsoft caused 
grievous damage to the Netscape corporation and others, any remedy 
should 'unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,' Ford Motor 
Co., 405 U.S. at 577, and '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,' United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 
(1968).
    The only way that this can be accomplished is to split Microsoft 
into multiple companies! One company that deals only in operating 
systems that, by definition, are vehicles upon which application 
software packages ride and do not provide direct application 
functionality. The rest of Microsoft could then be divided into 
software utilities, productivity suites, games, etc., company(s).
    As a 30 year computer software engineer on IBM mainframes, 
military computers, and desktop computers, I do have knowledge in 
this area, which greatly exceeds the knowledge of the general 
populace. I already have a hard time finding desirable software that 
I can run on my personal and work computers that is not made by 
Microsoft. All of the really good stuff is already gone, swallowed 
by the behemoth of software, Microsoft. The few remaining companies 
tremble in fear that mighty MS may soon decide to cut them off from 
the information necessary to compete, if not actually force them out 
of business! And, all of this is killing my wallet! As long as 
Microsoft can continue to raise the price of their operating systems 
by integrating more and more application software, our economy will 
continue to suffer! The price of Personal Computers has dropped to 
one-third of their original price, while the price of Windows has 
increased in the same time period. And, as MS drives competition out 
of the market, the price on MS application software continues to 
rise.
    The time to punish Microsoft is now, before it is too late!
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Griffis
    SunGard AMS
    104 Inverness Center Place
    Suite 325
    Birmingham, AL 35242
    (205) 437-7622
    Home office:
    11535 McMeans Blvd.
    Tanner, AL 35671
    (256) 216-5683
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00009814

From: Abigail Ochs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    After reading about the Microsoft antitrust case, I feel as 
though the Justice Department has ignored the majority of the court 
findings that Microsoft has aggressively abused its monopoly 
position for its own competitive advantage. Additionally, I feel 
that the final proposition to not penalize MS for its long-standing 
antitrust abuses is actually granting it a de-facto monopoly in the 
industry going forward. This failure on the part of the Justice 
Department could enable Microsoft's predatory patterns to eclipse 
emerging software companies or even dissuade the creation of new 
companies. For this reason, I would strongly urge that you 
reconsider the proposed final judgment.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Abigail Ochs



MTC-00009815

From: Lindeman, Andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:19pm
Subject: Microsoft needs a bigger penelty
    To whom it concerns,
    I believe that the previous agreement that was made by Microsoft 
and a few of the states involved is a mere (or less than) a slap on 
the wrist. Microsoft has no viable competition (at the time) and 
because of this, they have already been determined to be an illegal 
monopoly.
    Competition is a good thing. Competition provides good prices 
and quality products. Are Microsoft products low priced and good 
quality? NO! They are way overpriced--XP full version HOME EDITION 
is $200; 2000 Adv. Server can get in to the thousands and ten-
thousands by the time all of the licenses are paid for. They are 
also not quality products either; There is a major Microsoft bug at 
least every 3-4 weeks, and many smaller to medium priority bugs 
almost every day! Microsoft would like to keep it this way, and they 
can't be allowed to be.
    Microsoft needs something more than a slap on the wrist, they 
need to be punished for what they did, and they deserve more than 
what the current agreement allows.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Lindeman
    118 Brookdel Drive
    Madison, AL 35758



MTC-00009816

From: Mail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree strongly with Richard Blumenthal regarding the remedies 
which should be imposed in any Microsoft settlement. These should 
include remedies (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar 
conduct in the future, (2) to spark competition in this industry; 
and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Please also consider the items listed in my previous 
correspondence as means to this end. As a computer professional, I 
am willing to help in this matter in any way I can.
    Thank you.
    Regards,
    Michael Kitchen, CEO Front Row Computer



MTC-00009817

From: Salim Furth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    To be quite brief, I urge you to reject the U.S. Justice 
Department's agreement with the Microsoft Corporation. As a 
computer-dependent student and webmaster, I experience firsthand the 
MS software and OS

[[Page 25211]]

monopoly firsthand, and find it distinctly unAmerican. The inability 
of other operating systems and software providers to be competitive 
in the American market effectively outsources innovation overseas, 
which will catch up with the U.S. software industry in a few years 
if Microsoft is not stopped.
    Thank you for entertaining input from citizens, as one such 
citizen I greatly appreciate this service.
    Sincerely,
    Salim Furth
    Milton, Massachusetts
    [email protected]



MTC-00009818

From: Jeff Monks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata Hesse
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    As an information technology professional, I consider myself 
someone who is heavily impacted by Microsoft's influence in the 
industry. I also believe I am well-informed of the issues involved, 
and have a clear understanding of the case. That is why I am 
extremely dismayed at the settlement proposed by the Department of 
Justice. While it provides a possible starting place for a fair 
settlement, it is almost worthless as regards protecting the 
industry from Microsoft's illegal monopolistic practices.
    Judge Jackson's findings that Microsoft's past actions 
constituted illegal maintenance of a monopoly are nearly 
unaddressed: where is Microsoft being punished under the proposed 
settlement? The settlement merely outlines a few guidelines for 
future business practices, without levying any sort of punitive 
action for past actions. It is important to remember that we are 
talking about a corporation that has been found guilty of breaking 
United States law, and under the proposed settlement will not even 
be subject to a fine.
    I would propose at least two additional requirements for the 
settlement:
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. One of the most powerful tools for 
Microsoft to maintain its monopoly influence and control competitors 
is the use of its market share to force users to use Microsoft 
software in order to interoperate with other users. Open file 
formats and communications protocols would enable competitors to 
enter the market with substantially reduced barriers to acceptance, 
allowing them to compete with Microsoft on a ``level playing 
field''.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its software patents for defense 
only (patents in other fields are not necessarily relevant here, and 
can be exempted). It does little good to force publication of 
specification to an interface, if elements of that interface are 
patented and Microsoft refuses to license the patent to competitors. 
Requiring Microsoft to offer open licensing for any patents that 
would interfere with the requirement for open specifications is a 
must.
    Further, I must stress that I feel it is a grave disservice to 
the people who have been hurt by Microsoft's practices to allow 
Microsoft to enter into any settlement without paying some sort of 
appropriate penalty for its past actions. To do any less would 
deprive the American public of any real justice in this case.
    Yours sincerely,
    Jeffrey L. Monks
    7103 Rock Springs Cove
    Austin, TX 78729



MTC-00009819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:35pm
Subject: A comment
    I am sorry, but I do not see how a slap on the wrist is going to 
improve things in the future. If the anti-trust case is anything 
more than a joke then the penalty MUST be commensurate with the 
massive amount of damage that they have illegally (Microsoft was 
found guilty of anti competitive business practices) wrecked upon 
other computer technology companies probably since the beginning. An 
inconsequential penalty will not give pause to the continuation of 
these unethical and, in my humble opinion un-American business 
practices. If Microsoft is allowed to continue unchecked the result 
will likely be the decline of the American tech sector as a whole 
with possibly unpleasant repercussions to our entire economy. Thank 
you.



MTC-00009820

From: Arthur McIntyre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft should not be punished for the Windows 
product. The Apple computer only has 1 OS allowed on it and that is 
a monopoly for Apple Computers in that respect. If I wanted Linux, 
BeOs or Unix I would have it. None of these OS's offer what I need 
or want. I do not run a network system at home only a desk top 
system. I am not looking to be a hacker or such that I need these 
systems. If I wanted them I would use them. These are the company's 
that are pressuring everyone to do something about Microsoft. If 
they want to be on my desk top maybe they should offer something I 
want. But they do not. If I wanted to use Netscape as my browser I 
could. At one time I used Netscape as my only browser then I started 
to use both of them depending on what web site I was going to use. I 
stopped using Netscape because they did not keep up with IE in 
innovation and offering what I wanted. If they came up with a new 
browser I would use it. It is all about what have you done for me 
lately and they have done nothing. I think AOL is trying to become a 
monopoly in its own way. They bought Netscape but still offer IE and 
the browser that is AOL's is terrible. If you have AOL you have to 
use all of what they want. I do not see any other internet provider 
doing that. I have used at least 6 different Internet providers for 
the time I have been on the net but the only one I have not tried 
and used is AOL and I would not ever. It is like be a mindless 
slave.
    They only thing that should be required of Microsoft is that 
they allow computer manufacturers to set-up Windows how they want 
but if they do then that manufacture has to have help support or pay 
for the support from Microsoft for their systems if they change the 
set-up. They should also be allowed to add other company's stuff to 
Window's. But the consumer has to be thought about here.
    If I buy someone's computer instead of building my own I should 
not have to be forced to have what that company says should be on it 
just because they have signed a marketing contract with them. If 
they are going to offer only AOL for me to sign on to the internet 
with then that is wrong is does not allow me freedom of choice. I 
think all computers should have the same windows on them then a 
extra disc is used and the consumer gets to pick what they want 
after that. All providers could put their stuff on this disc and 
then the consumer can choose what they want to install and it should 
work without a problem. Why should Microsoft be punished for 
something that everyone wants. For the people who bash Microsoft it 
goes to the same thing as TV and Radio, If you don't like the 
channel change it. Nobody is making you listen to them. It is all 
about freedom and this is now being walked on since other company's 
do not have something I want.
    Thank You,
    Arthur & Viva McIntyre



MTC-00009821

From: Jim Brents
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the harassment of Bill gates and let him get on with doing 
what he does better than all his competitors; supplying the American 
consumer with the best products money can buy.
    Jim Brents
    Bay City, TX



MTC-00009822

From: Robert Talbott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft
    This case has drug on too long. They have paid the publicity 
price and Clinton doesn't need it any more.
    Let's finish and be done with it.
    Bob Talbott



MTC-00009823

From: Jeremy Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:01pm
Subject: US vs Microsoft Jeremy Brown January 9, 2002 The Honorable 
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy 315 Russell Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Sen. Kennedy:
    I am writing you in regards to the proposed settlement in the 
case of US vs. Microsoft. I am a professional in the IT field and 
have to deal with Microsoft products on a regular basis. In my 
opinion, this settlement is not good for the people of the United 
States or

[[Page 25212]]

its competitors. Microsoft has bullied its way to the top, and 
continues to use its considerable clout to keep its position.
    In my every day dealings with Microsoft products, I have seen 
examples of limited choice, poor functionality and inferior 
workmanship. Some examples:
    * In Windows Millennium Edition and Windows XP, many programs 
cannot be uninstalled or disabled, wasting space and resources. 
Examples include Microsoft Passport registration, Windows Media 
Player, Windows Movie Maker and Windows System Restore. Even if I 
wished to install another piece of software that would perform the 
same task more efficiently or with more features, these programs 
remain.
    * The newest version of the Microsoft Corporate License Program 
requires any corporate subscriber to upgrade their software on 
Microsoft's timetable instead of their own. Microsoft states that 
the cost of software will be lower, but fails to mention that the 
Total cost of ownership will be higher. The demands that newer 
Microsoft's software puts on equipment rises in each iteration of 
the software. Corporations will have to invest in more powerful 
computers, staff training, and IT management. Reference: www.idg.net 
http://www.idg.net/ic--784747--1794--9-10000.html>
    * Microsoft has taken deliberate steps in order to force 
companies to upgrade to its newer software products. They have 
announced that it will discontinue support of all previous versions 
of Windows before Windows 2000 and XP as of the end of 2002. Windows 
98 and NT 4.0 are still viable solutions in many companies, and will 
continue to be for several years to come and without regular updates 
to these programs from MS, many companies will have to spend more 
time and effort in maintaining corporate systems. MS has also pulled 
functionality updates, specifically Windows NT 4.0 service pack 7, 
which would have allowed companies to maintain their existing 
servers with newer Windows 2000 based servers and its newer network 
directory format. When MS introduced Office 97, they changed the 
format that files were saved making them unreadable for earlier 
versions of Office. All of these issues relate back to my second 
point.
    * Time after time, MS has released products that are full of 
security holes that can endanger the safety of corporate networks, 
information and business. The latest Internet Explorer 6 security 
hole alarmed the FBI to the point that the agency issued a press 
release aimed at the general public and corporations that pointed 
out the severe danger level the error posed to computers and 
networks. In a study recently released by the National Academy of 
Sciences has called for legislation regulating this issue. 
Reference: www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/
22120101.htm>
    * Microsoft has been proven to take international recognized 
standards and alter them so that they will work more efficiently 
with its own products and poorly or not at all with other companies? 
products. The most famous and egregious is the now-famous Sun Java 
fiasco, but others have included changes to the Kerberos security 
protocol and Quality of Service (QoS) protocols.
    * In a recently leaked memo MS is said that it will intend to 
launch a full-fledged Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) against Linux, 
its most capable opponent in the server field. Reference: 
www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/>
    * Microsoft grossly inflates the price for various versions of 
its operating systems based on how many processors it can use in a 
computer, while Linux and most other server operating systems do 
not. This has lead to issues with Intel's newest Pentium chip, which 
uses a technology called Hyper-Threading and will appear as multiple 
CPUs to the operating system. To properly use this function at home, 
minimally you would have to purchase Windows XP or 2000 
Professional, at a 33% increase in price over Windows XP Home. The 
cost for server versions of Windows 2000 would more than double 
between each version. EG, Windows 2000 Server with 5 licenses costs 
approximately $850+ $50 for each additional license and supports up 
to four processors, but to properly use a four processor equipped 
server with the Intel Pentium 4 Xeon processor that supports Hyper-
Threading, you would have to purchase Windows 2000 Advanced Server 
with 25 licenses (minimum amount of licenses available for this 
product) that would cost approximately $3400. Reference: 
www.theinquirer.net http://www.theinquirer.net/30120102.htm> , 
www.pcmall.com http://www.pcmall.com/> .
    * As seen in the previous point, Microsoft charges you to access 
their server products that are installed on a server. If you have a 
small company that only needs 5 Client Access Licenses, you are set. 
But if you were to hire a temporary employee, you are required to 
purchase a new license for the temp. Failing to do so could bring 
about litigation that could cost thousands. No other server 
operating system does this.
    I have listed just eight points that just begin to scratch the 
surface of the abuse Microsoft commits, and there are hundreds if 
not thousands of issues that I do not deal with on a regular basis 
thus cannot address. I hope that you and other members of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary will address these points in regards to 
the poor settlement worked out by the Department of Justice with 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Brown
    Network Systems Engineer
    4 Montgomery Dr,
    Framingham, Ma, 01701-3962
    Phone: 508-877-2307
    Fax: 508-877-0131



MTC-00009825

From: Barclay Thomas M
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  6:11pm
Subject: Real penalties and permanent oversight for Microsoft, 
please
    222 Park Avenue
    Long Beach,
    CA 90803
    9 January 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq. Trial Attorney
    Suite 1200
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW,
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    I am a citizen of the United States. I work in the information 
technology industry. I believe that it would be disastrous for me 
should all the tools of my livelihood be owned by a single corporate 
entity, no matter how well intentioned. This is what Microsoft 
intends. The evidence revealed in court which led to their antitrust 
conviction indicates that Microsoft is not well intentioned. I am 
profoundly concerned that, in the matter of US vs. Microsoft, the 
penalty phase of the trial is being managed by the convicted 
defendant in such ways as to increase their monopoly over today's 
information technology and, even more importantly, that of tomorrow. 
The far-reaching consequences of this de facto reversal of the anti-
trust trial verdict would be difficult to overestimate. It is no 
exaggeration to say that this is a matter that will impact every 
life on this planet for many lifetimes to come.
    Because of the importance of this issue (in my view), I will 
also fax this letter to you at 202/616-9937.
    It is critically important that real, far-reaching and 
controlling penalties be assessed against Microsoft. Their very 
settlement proposal shows that the corporation's unbridled ambitions 
include actual control of every possible future application of 
information technology. The tendrils of this plan reach deeply into 
matters of the defense of this country and its economic health, in 
ways so insidious that they can be nothing but another Microsoft 
plan for market dominance.
    This time, Microsoft is clearly thinking of the big picture. 
They are thinking of the entire nation and its governance. They are 
thinking of the entire global economy. They want it all. Their 
proposed settlement is another covert, gift-wrapped mechanism to 
achieve ambitious and self-serving ends.
    Microsoft is not sorry that it has performed monopolistically. 
They are ceaselessly, incurably, rapaciously ambitious. They have 
been found guilty; the punishment you help to assign must somehow 
enforce a curb upon their avarice and ability to infiltrate the 
fabric of our entire lives. Serious penalties are called for. 
Constant oversight is called for. The proposed settlement includes 
neither of these elements.
    I could synthesize my own arguments for your consideration, but 
others, better informed and more knowledgeable, have already done 
so. I will quote them extensively, and hope you will consider the 
wisdom of their words.
    From Dennis E. Powell of LinuxPlanet:
    ``The ... proposed settlement ... would grant Microsoft its 
operating system monopoly--indeed, contains wording such that it 
would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that monopoly--
while saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make it easier for 
people to write Windows applications, but it's by no means required 
to do so. In short, the settlement is a travesty, an ill-advised

[[Page 25213]]

embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law and upon all 
but the most twisted notion of justice.
    ``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 ... 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.
    ``I ... point out that if the national interest is at issue ... 
and as the judge has suggested... 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, 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.''
    ``A settlement more along the lines of the one I propose above 
would greatly benefit Windows users as well, because 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 ask the judge to consider that 
the proposed settlement hurts each and every one of us in this 
nation in real, tangible ways. The proposed settlement should be 
rejected as ineffectual and again a tool of monopoly for Microsoft.
    Here are the words of a California system administrator, with 
which I whole-heartedly agree: ``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 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 its 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 its web of interdependencies. With its 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. . . .''
    From a Canadian university (a nation whose economic fortunes are 
inextricably tied to those of the United States) comes a very 
specific analysis with which there can be no cogent argument, 
because it raises the issue of the user's right to his or her own 
data: ``Because the most successful competitors in recent years in 
product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly 
(e.g. 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 purchasers 
knew that without these products they could save some number of 
dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable 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

[[Page 25214]]

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.''
    If much of the legal profession is about finding loopholes (it 
is), then accountancy is about closing them. So it's not surprising 
that a certified public accountant found a glaring and terrible 
loophole in the proposed settlement and argued that it should be 
eliminated:
    ``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.''
    Many of us are simply and plainly harmed by Microsoft's business 
practices. From Microsoft's own back yard, Seattle, a commentator 
considers the specifics of the proposed settlement. She provides a 
compelling illustration of how she is personally damaged by the 
Microsoft monopoly: ``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. (Doesn't) this seem 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.
    ``. . . 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 (under the 
terms of the proposed settlement). ``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: http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134378212--qwest14m0.html 
``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 ... have them fail (with 
resulting) 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 ... 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 ... 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 (an) 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.''
    A computer professional who has a long list of certifications--
including some from Microsoft-- makes the point that competition is 
the only assurance of high quality:
    ``Microsoft products, by virtue of being (created by) 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 practices of Microsoft, no possible 
competitive products have been able to get a start.
    ``As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system called 
0S/2 in 1992. Only today, some 9 years later, is Windows XP 
beginning to catch up to the technical capability of 0S/2. In fact 
it still has a long way to go to catch up to 0S/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 (that) they also paid (for) 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 (be forced through software) included in the cost of the 
computer ....

[[Page 25215]]

    ``(This situation) is much akin to buying a car, and with that 
car purchase also comes 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? ...''
    From Rick Hohensee of the cLIeNUX distribution comes a 
substitute remedy proposal: ``(It would be best if) the Court 
declares Microsoft operating system products `criminally compromised 
intellectual property'. This is a special state of copyright 
protection vacancy, under which Microsoft operating system products 
lose their patent and copyright protections exactly five years after 
their release dates .... ``First off, it has (the) one essential 
characteristic of anything that will be effective upon Microsoft, 
simplicity. They feed on loopholes. There are none in the above. 
There's nothing they can do about the Fed not protecting the 
copyrights their existence depends upon.
    ``There is nothing for them to cooperate with.
    ``This doesn't require any cooperation or good faith from 
Microsoft, which is also crucial. (They may actually favor this 
remedy, however.)
    ``It does actually partially break their monopoly. The AOLs and 
Oracles and Rick Hohensees of the world can produce their own 
alternatives to Windows, based on older versions of Windows. (I 
personally have to be very well paid to look at a Windows desktop, 
but distastes vary. I use Linux.)
    The focus is on the software others are dependent on, (the) 
operating systems. This leaves Microsoft untouched as to application 
products such as Office....
    ``What goes in an OS, where they expend their energies, all 
product design decisions and so on remain with Microsoft. Federal 
micromanagement of Microsoft is avoided, to everyone's benefit .... 
``
    Another correspondent, from England, makes comments that must be 
seen in the Federal Register. They neatly address further Microsoft 
plans to manage national and world trade through monopolistic 
practices identical to those for which Microsoft was convicted. ``MS 
is desperate to stop Linux from competing in the client /server 
market by enforcing an MS client/MS server strategy. An example of 
this is the recent non-standard extensions to Kerberos so that if 
companies have MS clients they will find the encryption protocols 
may only work properly when they're talking to MS servers. This is 
to be expected from the company that continuously muddied the waters 
on SMB.
    ``.NET is really an extension of the same principle, though the 
spinmeisters at Redmond make sickening paeans to Open Standards with 
their `XML Foundations' nonsense. ``Let me give you an example of 
Microsoft's commitment to XML as an open standard for data 
exchange--taken from the December 2001 issue of Linux User in an 
interview with OperaSoft's Haakon Lie:
    ``MS office claims to support XML but it writes the XML tags 
inside HTML comments so that they can not be found (by non-MS 
software). Even if the software then knew how to find the XML tags 
it would not know how to interpret them as the format used for the 
tags is proprietary! ``I think this tells you all you need to know 
about Microsoft's conversion to XML.
    ``What about those of us who do not live in the US? Microsoft's 
policies affect the entire world-- how do the rest of us try and 
have a say in this? I speak as someone who lives in a country whose 
government has decided to hive off the public sector IT 
infrastructure lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft, and whose 
leader, Tony Blair, goes weak-kneed in the presence of Bill Gates. 
Britain is about to become the first reference site in the world for 
.Net, if Gates gets approval from the government to roll out a 
multi-billion dollar 100% MS solution for the tax authorities. In 
the last month it has been announced that the National Health 
Service and the Ministry of Defence have signed deals to put *all* 
of their desktops under one MS licensing contract. In three years 
time, if they want to carry on using the software, they will have to 
pay whatever amount MS demands (the joys of software rental). The 
lion's share of government contracts (in pound sterling terms) have 
gone to EDS, a company which makes no secret of the fact that it is 
little more than a value added reseller for Microsoft (all of EDS's 
costly `solutions' are 100% MS).''
    Please consider that the U.S. government has made much of 
globalization. It is a good idea for the government to understand 
that in cases such as this one, which have a global impact, this 
means responsibility for corporate behavior within the boundaries of 
the United States. Additionally, parties injured by the actions of 
American companies, which actions took place in the U.S., have 
standing by every standard I can find.
    Finally, I will quote another wise man, a Floridian with more 
intensive software industry experience than mine, who speaks to the 
point of freedom of choice for the consumer: ``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 to any casual software user that 
Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web 
Browser market. It is more apparent to a software developer who 
works 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.
    ``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.

[[Page 25216]]

    ``(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 manufacturers 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 judgment 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. 
Judgment 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, (and) 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.''
    Please do not allow this travesty of a negotiated settlement to 
warp this nation's future. Please do not allow the tools of 
production to remain in a single pair of grasping corporate hands. 
Thank you for your consideration. Please help the judge to make 
careful and considered choices. The task before you now is to rein 
in this corporate megalith and constrain its future behavior into 
conformity with the letter and spirit of the law. The richest must 
not be allowed to legislate for all of us, with no end other than 
their further enrichment. That isn't justice.
    Thomas M. Barclay



MTC-00009826

From: Steve Oualline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:15pm
Subject: Problems with the Microsoft Settlement
    I am extremely concerned about the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft for a long time has been able to use their monopoly 
power to keep other products off the market. This has allowed them 
to overcharge for both their operating system and office suite.
    The settlement does nothing to punish this past behavior. 
Itstead it rewards Microsoft by letting it keep all the money it 
stole from consumers through overchargin.
    The other problem is that it does not prohibit future problems. 
There is nothing to prevent Microsoft from using its monopoly in 
operating systems from using that monoply to leverage itself into 
the E-commerce market. Microsoft has long wanted to place a 
``Microsoft Tax'' on every web based transaction and this settlement 
will let them go ahead. If the settlement stands I can easily see a 
day when Microsoft forces everyone who uses Windows to use Microsoft 
Passport (or some other Microsoft technology) when buying on line.
    Finally, the settlement forces Microsoft to expose it's API's so 
that other people can write applications for the Microsoft Operating 
system. However, Microsoft has added a clause that excludes Open 
Source Projects. Since these are the principal compentation for 
Microsoft's products I find that provision extremely troubling.
    What Microsoft has done is said it will let anyone who wants to 
get a copy of the API's except for anyone who might be really able 
to use it. Is that a settlement or a gift to Microsoft?
    In short this settlement gives almost everything to Microsoft 
that Microsoft wanted. What we need is a settlement that contains 
real penalitites and provides for solutions that foster real 
compentation.
    Steve Oualline
    11259 Paul Barwick Ct.
    San Diego, CA 92126
    858-695-2637



MTC-00009827

From: Derek Su
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a taxpayer and citizen, I want to express my strongest 
displeasure and disappointment of State government efforts 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 time.
    Sincerely yours,
    Derek Su
    id5solutions
    512.342.0500 x14



MTC-00009828

From: Matthew Dunn
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/9/02  6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft needs to be punished for their crimes. Punish them in 
a way that will help the IT industry. Make them share their API's. 
As far as the making them give schools software...thanks now they 
can take over a new market that they are not in.
    Matt Dunn
    Tech Manager
    Microsoft product user



MTC-00009829

From: Jim Brents
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it was totally unfair to persecute Bill Gates for doing 
a superb job of supplying the consumer with computer services. If 
the settlement will end the persecution & let he and his company get 
back to business, it should be accepted ASAP.
    Sincerely,
    Sandi Brents,
    Bay City, TX



MTC-00009830

From: Randy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:35pm
Subject: hands off
    The government should keep their hands off Microsoft! This 
intrusion is a threat to ALL businesses in this country! How dare 
they think they can just come in and take over! Are we still living 
in the United States, or what?!
    Jennifer Davidson
    Petaluma, CA



MTC-00009831

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  6:49pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I support the Microsoft settlement



MTC-00009833

From: Frapazoid 1.4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:23pm
Subject: My opinion of the Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft's preposed settlement of buying their own software for 
schools is absolutely insane, for many reasons.
    1) If Microsoft buys their own software with the money, at full 
price, how are they being punished? Let's say they ``spend'' 100k 
dollars on WindowsXP. At 200$ per copy, they are really only paying 
for the 3$ manufactur cost, and the rest just goes back to them. So 
they are really only spening a 1.5% fraction of it. This applies to 
just about all of their software.
    2) Buying Microsoft's own software only strengthens their 
monopoly by training millions of kids at schools in the use of 
Microsoft software. So when they someday decide to buy their own 
computers, they will get what they are used to; Microsoft software.
    3) The simple fact that it's Microsoft who suggested this 
settlement should be very suspicious. Obviously a company will try 
to

[[Page 25217]]

come up with a punishment that doesn't really work but seems bad.
    4) A well known tactic of Microsoft is to pay people to send 
supportive EMails and mock flame-mails from fake Linux users. Anyone 
who claims to use Linux and is sending really moronic messages to 
this address is probably really a Microsoft supporter. Check their 
Email headers and you will see they are using Windows.
    Here is my preposed solution. Microsoft should spend 1$ dollars 
on installing and support of competitor's software.
    That means Linux, StarOffice, possibly Macintosh, etc. The rule 
should be that whoever they buy software from must not be an ally; 
They must be a competitor.
    Also, Netscape is a must, in place of Internet Explorer. This 
would work better for the following reasons:
    1) The money doesn't just go back to Microsoft. They actually 
have to do some spending, instead of just faking it.
    2) It hurts the monopoly buy training people to use competitor's 
software and hardware rather than their own.
    3) WindowsXP has high system requirements, so a good portion of 
the money will be spent on hardware. As a result, a smaller number 
of machines will be able to be updated, because of the higher cost. 
However, if something like Linux is used, hardware will not require 
as much improvement. Less upgrade cost means more computers to be 
upgraded.
    4) Linux is far cheaper than Windows XP, which also means more 
systems will be upgraded. Even with support, RedHat Linux would only 
cost 60$ per copy, where WindowsXP would be significantly more. 
Without the support, it would be about 5$ per school for OS 
software.
    5) This would be very supportive of Microsoft's competitors, 
thus causing much damage to their monopoly. Also, if Microsoft 
opposes this type of settlement, that means it will work as a 
punishment. After all, if the criminal is okay with the punishment, 
it's not a good one.
    6) Most of Microsoft's competitors may be willing to give price 
cuts to help their reputation, which would allow even more systems 
to be updated with the billion dollars.
    If you read this, please reply. You don't even need to say 
anything, just hit reply and send without typing anything. I would 
just like to be aware of wether these messages are being read or 
not.



MTC-00009834

From: Barry Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Sir: i am glad that the DOJ and numerous states have 
reached a settlement with Microsoft.
    It is my sincerest hope that the remainder of the states be 
brought ``into line'' with the settlement, so that the entire 
computer industry, including Microsoft, can get back to what it does 
best.
    Thank you,
    Barry Tucker
    PowerPro Systems Group, Inc.
    Microsoft Certified Solution Developer (programmer)
    Microsoft Certified Solution Provider
    CPA
    www.ppsg.com [email protected]
    520 742-9929



MTC-00009835

From: Ricevuto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:28pm
Subject: Web page not being updated...
    To whom it may concern,
    Will the web page (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm) 
be updated with any of the recent court activities (e.g. Microsoft 
not being able to extend the deadline for the hearing)? It seems 
that there has been no activity on it for a while.
    Please let me know.
    Thanks for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Ricevuto
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00009836

From: Elmer Laudinsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: It is time to get on with business. The settlement 
agreement, while still unfair to Microsoft, is most agreeable to all 
those it affects. It is time for forget those special interests, 
those that are complaining because they cannot compete at a fair 
price with a good product. Microsoft has made available to the 
public programs that are the best on the market at a price that 
anyone can afford.
    Let's get on with it and finalize this settlement.
    --Elmer Laudinsky
    [email protected]



MTC-00009837

From: Will Pearson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposed Settlement Rebuttal
    Hello,
    I'm writing to help inform those who are deciding the fate of 
the known world. The settlement with Microsoft as it currently 
stands is little more than a pat-on-the-back for a proven Monopoly.
    When Standard Oil was accused of being a monopoly Rockafeller 
beleived that the government didn't have the authority to dismantle 
his monopoly. When the government threatened to send in the 
military, Rockafeller backed down, thus we have the several oil 
companies we have today.
    Today we have Microsoft, a company with a reprehensible past. A 
company which has not innovated a single thing in it's history, and 
yet Microsoft gets rewarded for it's carpetbagging.
    I work in the Education business. I take care of Networks and 
computers for a School District. For proof of Microsoft's monopoly 
just walk down to your local school and look at the software that is 
being taught. I'd bet my computer certifications that 90% of them 
say ``Microsoft'' upon start up.
    Here we are, teaching our children that it's good to play 
unfair. That it's right to break the law because you'll be rewarded 
for it. Just look at how the proposed settlement will effect other 
companies. For instance, it gives Microsoft the authority as to who 
can use their protocols. Now in the computer world, things work good 
if protocols are standardized. Just look at the Internet running 
TCP/IP, it works only because of that free and public 
standardization.
    Now look at Linux, the free operating system originally created 
by Linus Torvalds, in the words of Microsoft Officer Brian 
Valentine, ``It is the longterm threat.'' Lets look at that 
sentence, notice he said `the' not `a' or even `possibly', he lept 
straight to the big 'ol `THE'. Microsoft believes that there isn't a 
single operating system in the world that possibly poses a threat to 
it's monopoly, except Linux. And here we have under the proposed 
settlement authority given to Microsoft to say who it can share it's 
protocols with. How, because it gives Microsoft the ability to 
discern what it beleives is a legitimate business. Since Linux is 
free, it is non-profit. And therefore, not a legitimate business. 
Nobody has made any money selling it.
    Furthermore, the settlement will have a devestating effect on 
the outcome of the various state lawsuits with Microsoft. Also the 
lawsuits involving the European Union. Why, it sets a precedent.
    You have a job to do, you have a job of punishing the bully in 
the playground for not playing nice and breaking other kids legs. Do 
your job and do the right thing.
    William Pearson
    Desk# 505-954-2583
    Pager# 505-820-8488
    Technology Resource Center
    ``The tree of liberty must be refreshed Santa Fe Public Schools 
from time to time with the blood of Patriots & Tyrants''--Thomas 
Jefferson ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a 
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' --
Benjamin Franklin ``I know not with what weapons World War III will 
be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and 
stones.''--Albert Einstein ``The purpose of war is to decide who has 
justice on his side, the looser is the guilty one''--Lucan



MTC-00009838

From: Doug Spittler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:52pm
Subject: Justice???
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It seems difficult to believe that the U.S. Government is STILL 
persecuting the company and the man who have brought about a 
revolution at least as great as the Industrial Revolution.
    This same government would be INOPERABLE if Bill Gates and 
Microsoft didn't exist.
    If another operating system of superior value were ``out 
there,'' the market place would surely have discovered it by now. 
Frankly, if I were Mr. Gates, I'd simply shut down Microsoft and let 
you folks stew in your own juice.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25218]]

    Doug Spittler
    Kalama, WA



MTC-00009839

From: Dorothy St. Onge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is time to settle this anti trust case in favor of 
Microsoft who should be free to innovate so that we can move into 
the furture. I don't believe Microsoft has hurt anyone who purchased 
software to use for business or pleasure. A computer today is 
considered old at 3 years and this case has gone on far longer than 
that and is costing the public a great deal of money. Money is what 
it is all about as far as the states and Microsoft competitors are 
concerned. They not only want Microsoft's money they want the tax 
payers to pay the court costs for as long as possible. Wrap up this 
case and let us get on with our lives and the right to innovate.
    Dorothy St. Onge
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00009840

From: robert begley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  7:55pm
Subject: Drop to Case Against Microsoft
    To Whom This Concerns,
    I am writing to say that Bill Gates, not Bill Clinton, is 
responsible for the boom in the economy we enjoyed during the 1990s. 
If you follow the NASDAQ since the AntiTrust trial against Microsoft 
heightened, you will see that it has spiralled downward 
dramatically. The Anti Trust laws are non objective and should be 
repealed immediately.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Begley



MTC-00009841

From: Deborah Levinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to write to tell you I hope you well do everything 
to settle this case quickly and once and for all and do everything 
in to get the last states to agree to the settlement that was agreed 
by the government and Microsoft. It is time to move forward from 
this case and move forward with our economy and letting Microsoft 
build great products.
    Thank you.
    D Levinger



MTC-00009842

From: Keith Frederick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a supporter of BeOS, an operating system that has 
recently--more or less--died with the sale of its parent company, 
Be, Inc. to Palm. I have noticed that many BeOS users are lobbying 
to extract gains from Microsoft or to increase punitive damages. 
However, unlike other BeOS supporters I do NOT support the anti-
trust case against Microsoft and hope that the Department of Justice 
does not seek to come up with new penalties or excessive penalties 
against Microsoft as it would be counter-productive.
    The truth about BeOS is that it failed due to poor management. 
Originally, BeOS was provided for a PARTICULAR COMPUTER SYSTEM--just 
like the Macintosh Operating system is provided for a particular 
computer system. Originally, BeOS was NOT DESIGNED to work on multi-
boot systems. That is, BeOS was designed for computers that COULD 
NOT run MS-Windows just like the Macintosh Operating system is on 
computer systems that can not run MS-Windows.
    The Be product was designed to compete for media developers who 
were currently using the Macintosh--so, originally Be's competition 
was the Macintosh. In fact, Be, Inc., at one time had hoped that 
Apple would purchase Be -- instead Apple purchased NeXT and based 
their future operating system on NeXT's technology rather than Be's 
technology.
    When Be failed to make headway with its own proprietary computer 
system; and when Be failed to win against NeXT; Be, Inc. then 
decided to compete in the general operating system market--against 
Linux, FreeBSD and Microsoft--all systems that run on low-cost Intel 
hardware. Be CHANGED their operating system to run on these new 
Intel systems. There was very little software for BeOS compared to 
Windows and Linux--that's why BeOS failed.
    Unlike Linux which gained headway and had tens of thousands of 
developers; the constant failures of Be turned-off developers and 
little software was every produced for BeOS systems. Microsoft's 
tactics had little to do with the failure of BeOS. BeOS was 
competing in the same market as the Macintosh originally 
(proprietary non-Intel systems) and failed; then BeOS went for the 
low-cost Intel market and failed; and then Be, Inc. once again tried 
a new strategy of forgetting about the desktop and concentrating on 
devices with their BeIA--then they ran out of money and sold 
themselves. Be had more ideas than money in the bank to support 
their goals.
    The history of Be is one of poor management. Be did not take the 
time to slowly build market share. Be, Inc. could NOT even erode 
Apple's market share when it competed against Apple. To think they 
had a good chance in the even more competitive Intel market is a 
laugh--Be was selling a proprietary closed operating system with 
little software--and virtually ZERO marketing. That combination 
against Linux (free with LOTS of publicity) and Windows (costly but 
with LOTS of software) was doomed to initial failure-- however, if 
Be had the money they might have carved out a niche --- they didn't 
have the money and thus no time to build a niche. That's not 
Microsoft's fault.
    Please end the whole Microsoft affair quickly and please don't 
allow people to put their failures at MS's doorstep. The story of Be 
has to do with poor management. Be lasted 10 years trying to be the 
next APPLE--only in the last few years did they compete in the 
Microsoft realm--their failure has nothing to do with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Frederick,
    Seattle, WA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009843

From: Alan Hensel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:26pm
Subject: think about the future
    People tend to forget this Law of Nature: Nature does not favor 
the mundane, nor does it favor the fantastic. Nature favors that 
which is probable.
    Keeping this in mind, consider these 4 facts:
    1) E-commerce is already a big thing, and will be even bigger in 
the future.
    2) Microsoft has a history of pulling the rug out from under 
competitors' feet.
    3) Microsoft wants to be the sole platform of future e-commerce.
    4) Microsoft wants to be able to helpfully auto-update their 
software instantly over your broadband connection.
    Alan Hensel
    108-G Shadowood Dr.
    Chapel Hill, NC 27514
    [email protected]



MTC-00009844

From: Jim Poulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:38pm
Subject: Retired USAF SWBell union memeber & MS Stockholder
    Is our government stupid?
    Quit screwing with the brightest light in our economy.
    If any other nation in the world had Microsoft in their country 
they would back them to the limit. Only because our country allows 
foreign lobbyists and because we have so many other multi-national 
companies bribing our officials do we have this problem. Support the 
USA and our workers and KNOCK IT OFF!
    James Poulton
    USAF (retired) MSgt
    214-902-8996



MTC-00009845

From: Richard Wray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
    We love Microsoft hardware, but if their competitors come up 
with something better, we'll try it. We don't think the Government 
should force the market. Microsoft hasn't used force; they have used 
contracts that both sides have agreed to.
    Leave Microsoft and the high-tech market alone. You'll only 
destroy the market by interjecting government force.
    Dick and Vivi Wray
    Palo Alto, CA



MTC-00009846

From: Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:00pm
Subject: Proposed settlement ICO U.S. v. Microsoft
    Dear Sir or Ma'am,
    The proposed settlement, in my view, does not punish Microsoft. 
Indeed it strengthens them. Please allow me to illustrate this:

[[Page 25219]]

    (a) The proposed settlement provides Microsoft with the sole 
legal license to determine who shall be considered a business. This 
does not at all bode well for organizations who write programs under 
the Gnu public license. As no actual financial instrument changes 
hands, Microsoft could state that a business/organization which 
operates under the Gnu public license is, according to Microsoft, 
not a business at all. As such, Microsoft is not required to provide 
technical details of their middle ware, etc.
    (b) As the settlement is to, at least purportedly, punish 
Microsoft for their--proven--monopolistic practices, nowhere in the 
proposed settlement is the requirement to, if you will, force the 
consumer during installation of the operating system to make certain 
choices. Choices pertaining to which web browser to have installed. 
Which e- mail program to have installed and on and on. And, even if 
there were, there is no requirement that there be no default 
settings. That would be counter to the intent and purpose of the 
settlement.
    (c) Since there is very little competition against Microsoft, 
how can there be as Microsoft has a proven monopoly, the products 
which Microsoft ships are by any reasonable standard quite poor. 
Security holes and patches that don't work are just two examples of 
many. This traditional shipping of poor products has cost consumers 
and businesses alike--billions--of dollars annually. Without 
competition there is no reason to improve a company's product line. 
Yet I can not find within the proposed settlement any protection for 
consumers or businesses which are using Microsoft products. There is 
no change to the current ``End User License Agreement'' which would 
provide businesses and consumers alike with a legal remedy 
(standing) should their system(s) be attacked by a virus, worm, 
cracker, etc. Furthermore, there is no legal remedy (standing) 
should a Microsoft product--cause--a business or consumer injury to 
their computer or files.
    An example of this is upgrading from Windows 98 to Windows 98SE 
and Windows 98SE fails to shut down properly due to Microsoft's 
willful--failure--to maintain device driver databases from previous 
editions of Windows. Consequently, a business or consumer either has 
to upgrade hardware or have their computer(s) crash on a daily 
basis. In short, there needs to be remedy for the consumer and 
business users of Microsoft products.
    (d) Consumers should have the--choice--of operating systems when 
purchasing a new computer. Consumers should not be stuck with 
``comes with Windows [pick a flavor].'' Hence, Microsoft should be 
forced to pull their operating systems from manufacturers. This 
would give consumers a choice in the matter.
    Thank you for your time.
    /s/Mr. Kelly Prince



MTC-00009847

From: Eric MacKnight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am appalled at the Justice Department's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft, which is nothing more than a disguised capitulation. 
Microsoft's business practices are unrepentingly rapacious. Bill 
Gates will do anything to win, and his ambition to control is 
insatiable. Just today I found another small ``incident'' 
illustrating Microsoft's lack of ethics, in this story of how 
Microsoft employees attempted to rig the results of a website poll 
in Microsoft's favour: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-
s2102244,00.html Clearly, half-measures will have no effect 
whatsoever in restraining Microsoft's illegal and unethical business 
practices. I urge you to take the strongest possible measures 
against this company. My own preference would be to require that the 
corporation be split in two, with the operating system business in 
one company, and the application software in another. This solution 
would remove the incentive to monopolize, remove most of the 
company's means to bully competitors, and promote innovation by 
allowing smaller companies a chance to compete in the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Eric MacKnight
    [email protected]
    CANADA
    Don't do Windows, and don't let Windows do you.
    Boycott Microsoft!
    http://www.procompetition.org/
    http://www.breakupmicrosoft.org/



MTC-00009848

From: M. Andrews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello--
    I'd just like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    About the 1 Billion in refurbished equipment and software. I 
really don't think that this is a punitive move. My reasons are as 
follows.
    1) While Microsoft is the default standard in nearly every 
market it is less a leader in the educational market. This now 
dictates that Microsoft has a federally mandated responsibility to 
pursue market dominance in education and in fact cannot be refused.
    2) Apple Computer, while a healthy company, is not the giant 
that Microsoft is and to have the Federal government instruct 
Microsoft to aggressively pursue market dominance will place undue 
and unnecessary strain on Apple Computer's abilities to effectively 
market products to this segment of Apple Computer's business.
    3) While the donation idea seems to be a decent and thoughtful 
move on the surface it in no way accomplishes the goals of the court 
case as I understand them, ``...the remedial goals set by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals:
    (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the 
future,
    (2) to spark competition in this industry; and
    (3) to deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.''
    I have owned stock in both companies. I have sold my stake in 
Microsoft this year. I have read the issues with Microsoft's 
corporate behavior and have decided not to be associated with a 
company that appears to have no ethical or moral underpinnings 
regarding their corporate methods. The latest developments with 
Microsoft's browser only underscore the fact that even though the 
company has judgments against it, it has failed to amend it's 
business practices to conform to generally accepted methods.
    Please pursue a better solution to the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
case, one that enforces the U.S. Court of Appeals goals.
    Thank you for your time,
    Mark Andrews
    109 Chestnut St.
    Branford, CT 06405



MTC-00009849

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, along with the vast majority of the masses, are getting sick 
and tired of the Dept of (Justice?) continuing to spend taxpayers 
money to punish Microsoft because some of it's competitors want a 
``level playing field'' so that they can gain on Microsoft without 
any development on their own. Why should a company (MS) give out all 
its source code (that took years to develope) to the world? This 
whole thing started with some silly browser (hah!) AOL now has both 
IE and netscape, so now where is the argument? The government has no 
business in this suit that it will never comprehend the damage they 
are doing to the country and to the many consumers. If you want to 
attack someone, go get AOL...who continues to push and push a BAD 
product after they have locked in millions of customers. They are 
MUCH more monopolistic than MS. If the government would leave this 
area up to the industry, they would resolve it by themselves. The 
DOH HAS NO IDEA of the many agreements and the damage this is doing 
to the millions of consumers and customers....it is not just 
punishing Microsoft.
    These last states attorney generals are just blowing smoke for 
some special competitors....this is not about abuse of the public 
and MS customers.



MTC-00009850

From: john l denny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that further litigation in the Microsoft case is 
undesirable.
    John L Denny
    4445 Catalina Place
    Tucson AZ 85718
    Prof. of Mathematics, Prof. of Radiology, Emeritus, University 
of Arizona



MTC-00009851

From: web blank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:26pm
Subject: ELIOT SPITZER AND DOJ NY NY WADC
    YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LETTER AS IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ME 
AND THE WWW GOPHER. REPLY O.K.
    SIGNED RICHARD JOHN FRANK 1-9-2002

[[Page 25220]]



MTC-00009852

From: Erwin Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the justice department should notify the renegade 
states that a settlement has been agreed upon and either join in or 
go home and sulk. Those States I refer to are backing companies in 
competition with Microsoft. The market is open to all who want to 
compete for it, if they are not competitive, they have only 
themselves to blame.
    Please put this issue to bed now.
    Erwin D. Brown



MTC-00009853

    From: Jean (038) Gene Millsaps

    To: Microsoft ATR
    Date: 1/9/02  9:45pm
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To the Honorable Court:
    As an interested software user and occasional application 
developer (novice), I write to protest the proposed settlement in 
United States Department of Justice vs. Microsoft.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices have apparently crippled 
software publishers Corel (office suite) and Netscape (web browser), 
and perhaps others of which I am not aware, yet no remedy is 
proposed to compensate the damage to their stockholders or 
successors. In my opinion, a true remedy would restore these damaged 
firm's products to a market-equal position and let the firms duel 
fairly in the marketplace.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Gene Millsaps
    131 Sport Court
    Mooresville, NC 28117-5506



MTC-00009854

From: Don Granston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it's past time for us to get this behind us.
    We have reviewed the settlement and think that it would be in 
the best interest of all parties to settle this NOW!!! Don't we have 
more important thing to do then to find unreasonable fault with one 
of our countries for thinkers?
    You are always going to find a small minority that is out for 
their best interest, and not for the betterment of everyone. 
Microsoft has helped us little people get connected, and without 
their work for many people today wouldn't be on the internet. It's 
our choice who we use and Microsoft doesn't dictate as many people 
think.
    Let's settle now!!!
    Don Granston



MTC-00009855

From: Jason R Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:14pm
Subject: I oppose the Microsoft settlement as it currently stands
    Hello, I am a computer professional that works out of San 
Francisco. I would just like to say that when Microsoft was found to 
be a monopoly, I was very happy. I grew up using Microsoft and Apple 
products-- starting when I was 12 years old. From that time though, 
I have seen Microsoft transform from just just ``another'' software 
vendor, to a company that rolls over anyone they see fit.
    I was there when were being investigated by the government 
during the DOS times. I was there during the ``Office wars''--which 
Microsoft clearly came out ahead (I mean, if you owned the code to 
the operating system, how can't you come out ahead). It didn't 
suprise me to hear that other Office developers were getting API 
(Application Programming Interface) documentation (and *not* getting 
undocumented APIs at all--unlike the Microsoft teams) late. And the 
list goes on and on and on.
    So, naturally, even though I grew up with Microsoft in the 
computer industry, I was naturally happy to hear they were finally 
ruled a monopoly. They are. Plain and simple. I cannot buy a big 
vendor computer without having to pay the 'Microsoft tax'--every 
machine comes bundled with some sort of Windows Operating System.
    This year, instead of buying a PC, I bought a Mac, in direct 
response to the Microsoft tax. Unfortunately, my Mac does not do the 
same things as my PC does, so I'm finding certain hard to 
accomplish, so I have to work on my work machines that do have a 
Microsoft OS on them.
    For me, a computer professional, I can handle other Operating 
Systems and computers. But for someone like my sister or mother and 
father, that's a different story. They have no choice. They have no 
recourse. They have to take what's given to them to communicate and 
participate in the 'digital age'. If they had a choice, I would feel 
much better.
    WindowsXP: B-A-D! Another area that really raises flags that the 
ruling does not cover is Microsoft's push into digital media. If 
they get their way, just like in the computer industry, then I'm 
sure I'll see more ``Microsoft Powered'' devices on the horizon. 
Limiting my choice of audio and video codecs; image compression 
algorithms; services that support these. Plus, Microsoft requires 
that in order to use XP, I have to have a Passport account. This is 
really scary. 2001 has been such a debacle from Microsoft in the 
security arena. Yet, very few seem to be raising the issue of one 
company owning a database (and their track record shows that they 
are lousy at security--even their own severs) of my information. If 
I buy XP, then I should own it. I should not be *required* to 
register for an online ID to activate it.
    For me, a computer professional, I can get around many Microsoft 
issues. Over the past few years, I've watched the web start as a 
platform independent medium, to a heavily Microsoft controlled one. 
Another way for them to own the desktop. It is sad because if you 
ask anyone who has used the web from the beginning, they will 
acknowledge just how dependent it is on Microsoft Internet Explorer. 
There used to be a choice, however.
    Now the justice department has set, in my opinon, the wheels in 
motion to let Microsoft continue on their path of, basically, 
domination of the PC and media industries. There are judges that are 
not qualified to make decisions on behalf of the American public 
regarding this matter. They do not understand the implications of 
this ruling nor the technologies involved. I for one feel that I 
must voice my opinion, as a computer professional and someone who 
has used countless Microsoft products over the years, and say that 
this ruling is inadequate and does not do what it was intended to 
do.
    Microsoft has been ruled as a monopoly. This is fact and cannot 
be changed. They should be now dealt with accordingly just like 
other landmark cases--AT&T, Standard Oil--were. This will NOT hurt 
the industry. In fact, competition is what drives our great economy. 
Let's have more of it. The American people deserve it. We demand it!
    Thank you.
    Jason Lee
    Associate Senior Software Engineer
    Novo Interactive
    San Francisco, CA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009856

From: wayne tynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:18pm
Subject: Dear Sirs,
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm writing to you as a concerned citizen. The Microsoft trial 
has been going on too long. As a taxpayer, I'm pained to see the 
government used as tool of Microsoft's competitors. How can you 
honestly tell people that there is a software monopoly?
    Will we run out of software? Can't people write their own 
software? Aren't there other operating systems to choose from that 
are free? Give us a break.
    Please stop spending my money this way.
    Regards,
    Wayne Tynes
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00009857

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I generally do not write E-mails on the behalf of big business. 
But I find this whole Microsoft saga disturbing. I do not agree with 
the idea that Microsoft should be punished or broken up. I think 
that Microsoft is an industry leader, in part because of its 
aggressive and forward thinking business practices, vital for 
competition in a very competitive market. I for one am thankful for 
what Microsoft has done. I think that the tremendous advances in 
computer technology can be attributed to Microsoft.
    I can assure you that if another company comes out with a 
product that I read about or try and find it that I like it better 
than Microsoft's version, I would certainly buy the product that I 
liked.
    If Microsoft feels that this latest judgment is fair, then I 
would have to agree.
    Thank you for your time.

[[Page 25221]]

    John Horlick



MTC-00009858

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    Please realize that allowing Microsoft to continue its business 
practices (current and past) is extremely dangerous and unfair. I 
have been involved with computers for over 18 years, and I have 
observed Microsoft's business practices. Although it may seem that 
Microsoft's innovation is the main reason for their dominance, but 
there is little that Microsoft has innovated. The company has used 
its size and deep pockets to overpower smaller companies. By 
protecting Microsoft, there is a risk that the industry will become 
stagnant. The prospect of putting all the eggs in one basket in the 
computer industry is extremely dangerous, especially with the 
security track record that Microsoft has. Even the use of a single 
OS in an organization can spell disaster should there be a major 
casualty. Due to the advances in cross platform compatibility, 
heterogeneous systems should be used to exploit each platforms 
strengths.
    Please consider the consequences of your actions by letting 
Microsoft off the hook. The computer industry understands real well 
the dangers of giving too much leeway to Microsoft. The full impact 
should be considered before Microsoft is allowed to continue 
unchecked.
    Sincerely
    Christopher R Susalis
    Yorktown Virginia



MTC-00009859

From: Steve Sparrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time this case be settled. The government, as well as 
Microsoft, continue to pay legal fees, which are ultimately paid for 
by consumers. Cut the costs and get the case settled.
    By the way, I don't believe consumers are complaining about 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. The complaints are coming from 
businesses. I thought legal remedies for monopolies only applied, 
when the public sector screams for action. Don't kill the goose that 
lays the golden eggs. Microsoft is a great business that contributes 
favorably to the balance of trade and is a great tax paying 
corporation. Also, Microsoft's innovations have contributed heavily 
to the productivity of everyone in the world.
    I look forward to a prompt settlement that allows Microsoft to 
stay in tack and continue to offer innovation that produces greater 
productivity. Certainly, Microsoft should be required to treat 
corporations and individuals fairly. As for the past, I am all for a 
smack on the wrist, and let's get going. The economy could use a 
shot in the arm, and I am sure Microsoft could help more, if they 
were involved in this long drawn out case.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Sparrow
    3408 Forestway Court
    Arlington, TX 76001-4849
    Family Phone: 817-561-1277
    Personal Phone: 817-561-1323
    Fax: 817-561-1339



MTC-00009860

From: Whittington, Tim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Dept. of Justice,
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to provide my comments 
regarding the Microsoft settlement.
    As a US citizen and a tax payer, I'm very concerned and quite 
frankly disappointed about the continued efforts of my government to 
pursue a company that continues to innovate. Here is a company that 
started with nothing, developed quality software at very competitive 
prices, became successful and now the government wants to punish 
them. Microsoft's software continues to deliver more features, 
integrate additional applications, increase performance, all at 
lower prices. As a consumer, I'm not sure how I'm harmed.
    I disagree with the appeals court ruling against Microsoft, but 
respect there decision. I feel the recent settlement reached is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I, along 
with many others consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is 
good for them, the industry and the American economy. I hope you 
reach the same conclusion.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Whittington
    VP, Premier Call Center Accounts
    Intecom, an EADS Telecom Company
    Bus: 972-855-8012
    Fax: 972-855-8006
    Pager: 800-421-8870
    E mail : [email protected]
    Web : www.Intecom.com



MTC-00009861

From: Robert E. Brode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:19pm
Subject: Public comment
    To whom it may concern,
    While I believe the Justice Department has done a heroic job in 
the legal struggle against Microsoft, it would appear to me that, 
once again, money talks and Corporate America will have succeeded in 
screwing the little person again.
    Only a brain dead person who has no clue as to the reality of 
life would think that innocent little Microsoft has been put upon by 
the big bad Justice Department.
    Over the years, Microsoft has made every effort possible to 
destroy the competition, maximize profits and force consumers to 
accept faulty, less than adequate operating systems and bloated and 
overpriced software. Microsoft has made very effort to become a 
monopoly and has finally succeeded. There is no competitor anywhere 
close to Microsoft's market share except possibly Apple (a far 
better and more efficient operating system and computer) but they?re 
so busy looking in the mirror admiring themselves, that they have 
lost the marketing advantage they had years ago. They simply pissed 
it away.
    If Microsoft walks away with this we can look forward to another 
20 years of non productive software, operating systems that crash at 
drop of a hat and no real innovative thinking. As I recall, Bill 
Gates didn?t actually design the DOS operating system. He bought it 
for $50,000. No innovation there. Windows is a ?not as well done? 
copy of the Apple graphic users interface. No innovation there. In 
fact, wasn?t it Bill Gates who told people that ?command line 
processing? was here to stay and no body would really use a mouse? 
No innovation there.
    Robert Brode



MTC-00009862

From: Patrick Auth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02  11:37pm
Subject: Drop the Microsoft case.
    Bill Clinton's administration was good for nothing other than 
slowing big buisness down. I believe it's call communism !! I think 
the justice department needs to find who killed Vince Foster. they 
should'nt have to go far, just ask Bill. I bet he knows !



MTC-00009863

From: [email protected]. uq.edu.au@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    Washington,
    USA.
    RE: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I would like to make a submission with regard to the Microsoft 
settlement.
    First of all, this settlement has international and global 
repercussions, and I hope that you can accept a submission from 
someone who is not a US citizen--from the viewpoint that monopoly is 
a global problem.
    When there is a monopoly in software--as already ruled by the 
courts--the international nature of the software market means that 
the monopoly is far more extensive than the US, and causes damage 
internationally.
    From my point of view as a consumer, I have never had a software 
product sold by Microsoft work acceptably. In every case, there were 
bugs that caused data loss or worse, which Microsoft did not fix.
    So, these products do not suit me, yet I find myself continually 
being forced to purchase them because of the monopolistic types of 
business methods used by Microsoft in Australia and elsewhere.
    These methods include especially the bundling of software with 
PC's, which I find highly objectionable. Why should I have to pay 
for an OS and software that I never use? Yet I have no choice in 
this!
    The use of proprietary and nonstandard file formats is another 
weapon used by Microsoft, which forces email and internet users to 
adopt Microsoft software. This is objectionable, and surely illegal. 
To settle with Microsoft, I suggest that Microsoft at least should 
be forced to to refund the cost of unwanted software to consumers--
both for past and future purchases--in order to discourage this 
monopolistic practise.
    In addition I suggest that file formats be published, and MS be 
enjoined to support at

[[Page 25222]]

least one internationally approved format--preferably standardised 
through the W3C--in each of its high market share programs.
    The idea of Microsoft donating software in settlement is out of 
the question. How can a legal settlement that tends to increase the 
impact of illegal activity be accepted? As a consumer, I prefer a 
cash refund!
    Peter Drummond. --
    Physics Department, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, 
Queensland, Australia. Tel:+61-7-3365-3404 Fax:+61-7-3365-1242
    [email protected]; www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/
drummond



MTC-00009864

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:46am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THEY 
WANT TO BUY AFTER ALL WE THE PEOPLE; BUY WHAT WE WANT AND THAT IS 
MICROSOFT, AFTER ALL THEY HAVE THE BEST PRODUCTS AND THE GREATER 
HELP NETWORK. I FEAL THAT YOU SHOULD LEAVE THEM ALONE TO DO WHAT 
THEY DO FOR ALL OF US.



MTC-00009865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but there is no hope 
of success if the following issues aren't addressed: examples: open 
Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make dual-boot options mandatory. 
Especially this dual boot options must be addressed. You can find 
more info here: http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/
byt20010824s0001/0827--hacker.html .
    Mvh
    Harals Jens's



MTC-00009866

From: Graeme Gott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:00am
Subject: The proposed settlement is the worst thing yet
    I am forced to deal with Microsoft and their monopolistic ways 
on a daily basis. I cheered when it appeared that the DOJ would 
finally do something about the monopoly. And then you sold out to 
Microsoft. Make no mistake, if you go through with this settlement, 
the computer industry will get even worse... and the economy with 
tank even more. Please reconsider your settlement. It gives 
Microsoft even more loopholes without doing anything about their 
anti-competive practices.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Graeme Gott



MTC-00009867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the M$ anti trust action represents a 
complete failure of the current laws to protect consumers & ensure a 
level playing field for competition.
    Microsoft failed to abide by the origonal judgement against 
them, has clearly continued their anti competitive behaviour and has 
now taken that behaviour to even higher levels with the release of 
Windows XP.
    The issues with XP are far wider & more serious than any 
previous behaviour & this behaviour is apparently now being condoned 
by this settlement which provides M$ with a platform to further 
promote their products over any alternatives.
    Within Australia the pricing issues alone are beyond belief. US 
Court evidence indicated 50% overcharging of consumers, with 
exchange rates taken into account the overcharging in Australia has 
been 200% and now with XP, the removal of Domain login from the 
basic/home version of the operating system, small business will be 
forced to move from a $A400 operating system to an $A660 operating 
system. Some 80% of small business is affected & the cost worldwide 
will run into $USBillions. The pricing of the M$ component of any PC 
price has risen in a market of dramatically increasing volumes, the 
opposite of normal market behaviour where shipment volumes increase.
    This has been possible due to the monopoly position. In some 
cases the M$ component is now 50% of PC manufacturing Price.
    There is also an element of using US PC manufacturers to engage 
in product dumping into the international market to the detriment of 
international PC assemblers. The court evidence indicates some US 
manufacturers purchased NT4 Operating System at $US20 where local 
manufaturers in Australia were being charged $A320 ($US160)
    The schools concerned could utilise free open source software 
rather than waste money on M$ software & thus free up resources for 
additional hardware or teaching resources.
    Throughout the current case M$ has been clearly in contempt of 
the courts in their actions which have been designed to ensure that 
it was not possible to recall or change products in the field with 
the browser (as distinct from the HTML rendering engine & 
communications utilities) embedded in the Operating Systems. The 
W98SE & Windows ME releases along with various Browser updates have 
been dubbed ``The DOJ releases'' with good reason.
    This case has been a classic example of how a Corporation can 
use delaying tactics in the courts to their advantage & profit from 
those tactics. This proposal for settlement should be withdrawn and 
a regime which ensures an open standards interface approach is 
adopted with full disclosure of all API's for application services & 
network services put in it's place. Penalties which reflect the 
magnitude of the crime and recover the revenue improperly gained by 
M$ during the case should also be put in place
    In addition to the above a public list of areas in which people 
believe M$ has/is acting improperly should be initiated. There are 
numerous areas in which this has been the case & the current case 
has only brushed the surface. A public list/discussion board is the 
only way in which the technical details of how M$ has acted 
anticompetitively will ever be fully disclosed or determined.
    Competition law will not be treated with any respect by 
Corporations unless this settlement is revised
    Wayne Carruthers



MTC-00009868

From: Thomas Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR, attorney.general@po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/10/02  5:52am
Subject: Concerning the Microsoft Antitrust Case
    To whom it may concern,
    The antitrust case against Microsoft is of huge importance to 
the public, and I believe that the public should be made aware of 
the findings against Microsoft, along with the details of the case.
    I believe that Microsoft's consistent and aggressive business 
tactics have hurt the competitors and consumers in many ways.
    I'd be happy to expand on my statement, however I am certain you 
receive many emails, and probably know much more than I do in this 
area anyways.
    Thanks for your time,
    Thomas P. Fuller Jr.
    3425 West 83rd Street
    Chicago, IL
    USA



MTC-00009869

From: Double 'S'
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of the Spanish Speaking BeOS Community.
    I have been promoting BeOS among friends and small companies for 
2 years now, and are now helping to bring BeOS (now from PALM) back 
again to the community.
    But to get people really using BeOS or to get more people or 
small companies trying out BeOS, some changes are needed in 
Microsoft policies.
    One drawback for novice computer users to try out BeOS or any 
other OS is the lack of easy of coexistence with Microsoft Operating 
Systems, aggravated in the new releases which deliberately kick out 
of the computer during install any bootmanager other than Microsoft. 
In Windows Me the BeOS Windows Compatible Loader does strangely 
``not work anymore''.
    The other main problem is the license policy of Microsoft 
Proprietary File Formats. Since MS Office Suite has a huge market 
share, it's almost impossible for Small Offices to work in team with 
other companies if they are not able to open (and save to) Microsoft 
file formats. This is also the case for the many Microsoft 
Proprietary Media File Formats used on the Internet.
    While Microsoft often license their File Formats or Technology 
to companies that endorse MS Windows, they deliberately do not to 
companies that endorse other Operating Systems.
    It will be almost impossible under these Microsoft practices for 
BeOS to gain market again if:

[[Page 25223]]

- Microsoft does not use a more flexible Licensing of their File 
Formats (Office and Media / Internet)
- Microsoft don't stop bringing competing new file formats and 
implementing them by brute force to compete with already good 
multiplatform file formats of other companies
- Microsoft Windows Installer and Bootmanagers keep deleting other 
Bootmanagers and Loaders.
    I do respect the effort and market gain of Microsoft, but many 
tactics have forced better solutions of competing companies out of 
the market, and they seem not to endorse any Technology that 
improves quality of computing for all users worldwide if this 
technology is not in their very best economical interest.
    Double 'S' a.k.a. Mr. Sanchez
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    MSN Messenger [email protected]
    ICQ--95140266



MTC-00009870

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft penalty
    Dear Sirs,
    It is ludicrous to believe for one moment that allowing 
Microsoft (MS) to donate its old stockpiles of outdated computer 
hardware and software to ``underprivileged schools'' is an 
appropriate penalty for a decade long multi billion dollar monopoly 
that to this very minute is still exercising its dominating 
influence around the world in every arena of the computer field. 
From component manufacturers to OEM's to distributors the computer 
industry is wrapped around microsoft's little finger. The latest 
release of windows xp is excellent example of the continuing 
violations of its unethical and unfair behavior. Windows XP 
purposely was designed so that AOL's internet browser would not 
function or even appear on the windows startup screen. AOL was 
forced to create a new revision that would work with WinXP and then 
had to try to bargain with OEM's to include it as a option on their 
preloaded retail computers. Please look beyond the short sightedness 
of the nine states agreeing to this paltry ``fine'' and take action 
to enforce a real penalty that removes MS ability to continue in 
such a dominating manner. Ten to fifteen year old computers and 
softwares will do nothing to increase the education of disadvantaged 
children primarily because none of it is compatible with anything 
that MS current produces. Such an education in nothing is a waste of 
childrens valuable learning time and an insult to intelligent 
parents everywhere.
    Benjamin R Buhanan
    Police Officer
    Surprise, Az



MTC-00009871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Both Fax's sent as requested.
    Bob



MTC-00009872

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a long time consumer of Microsoft product software who 
thinks that your DOJ settlement of the antitrust case was fair and 
proper. I do not feel that I have paid excessively for Microsoft's 
products, and have always had sufficient choice in tailoring my 
software to my own needs. I do not understand the 9 states, 
including my own, Florida, who want to punish Microsoft further for 
its past successes. None of those power-hungry attorney generals 
really has the end-user's interests in mind. Enough is enough.
    One fact is sure. Microsoft will include the lawyer fees they 
have paid in this law suit in pricing their future products. Please 
just stop all of this lawyer-profiteering at the expense of 
consumers like me--NOW! Tell the 9 states to cease and desist. By 
doing so, you are looking after MY interests!
    James Glenn
    Daily Home Computer User



MTC-00009873

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:13am
Subject: Public coverage of M$ trail
    Please fight for the right for the American people to observe 
the testimony of any and all phases of the Microsoft trials. The 
people deserve the right to see how this monopolistic behemoth has 
abused them. I personally want to hear what Sun Microsystems has to 
say at this hearing. Thank you for protecting the American Citizens 
rights in this matter.



MTC-00009874

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We firmly believe that this settlement as proposed is good for 
the company, for the country, and especially good for those of us 
who have come to depend on Microsoft as a leader and innovator. No 
company should be punished for being heads and shoulders above its 
competitors. This country was founded on free enterprise and 
competition. If Microsoft is able to give us wonderful new tools 
with which to communicate, then they should be allowed to do that 
without obstruction. If their competitors want a piece of the 
action, they should get smarter, not look for handouts from the 
Government. We buy Microsoft products because they are the best, and 
we have never been disadvantaged by Microsoft's marketing or 
management.
    Please leave them alone to create new and even better products 
for us.
    Marie and Fred Kraemer [email protected]



MTC-00009875

From: DR(u)Ammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    1263 Monticello Avenue
    Hermitage, PA 16148
    January 8, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three years of litigation, I am pleased that Microsoft and 
the government have finally decided to settle the antitrust suit. It 
will benefit the entire IT industry in the long run, and will give a 
great breath of fresh air to the economic doldrums we are currently 
experiencing.
    Tort reform is needed in all areas of our legal system. It is 
becoming impossible to function from medicine,dentistry and even in 
non profit situations.It's the money not the (joke) statement.
    Under the agreement, computer manufacturers are granted new 
opportunities to configure systems with access to various Windows 
features, such as those accessed by Windows Messenger and Windows 
Media Player. These programs can now be easily replaced with 
competing products.
    Also, Microsoft is allowing computer makers to make it easier to 
install non-Microsoft software, and to disclose information about 
certain internal interfaces in Windows. Finally, a ``Technical 
Committee'' will guarantee that all this actually happens.
    This agreement is both fair and reasonable. My tax dollars 
should be used to tackle the more important issues affecting the 
country. I trust that the Justice Department will not seek another 
round of action against Microsoft on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Ammer
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00009876

From: Rich King
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    why do you what to brake up the one true American success of the 
last twenty
    five years!



MTC-00009877

From: Kevin McCormick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:20am
Subject: microsoft anti-trust settlement
    I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed 
settlement. I object most strongly to the continuation of the 
``Microsoft Tax'' or the fees to Microsoft that are part of the 
purchase price of many, if not all, personal computer systems sold 
in the United States. Basically, the ``settlement'' is a sham since 
it does not absolutely prohibit the ``percentage of sales'' 
licensing schemes that Microsoft has used to force its software onto 
the public. PC hardware vendors such as Compaq, Dell, and Gateway 
should be required to offer a ``no pre-installed software'' option 
which completely avoids any costs for Microsoft licenses. However, I 
believe the (In)Justice Department currently is little more than an 
arm of giant corporations and right-wing extremists, so, in

[[Page 25224]]

a way, it is fittingly ironic that the corruption of Justice results 
in the imposition of inferior software at inflated costs. In 
politics you get what you pay for, but in PC's you pay for what you 
get.
    Thank you,
    Kevin McCormick



MTC-00009878

From: James Urie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:52am
Subject: Antitrust settlement.
    You guys and girls should be ashamed of yourselves. The best 
analogy that I can give to what Microsoft is doing to the 
marketplace and the consumer is: what their lawyers have done to 
you. You couldn't win and neither can we.
    Funny thing is is that by all respects you could have done the 
right thing in this case, we have no choice.



MTC-00009879

From: William R. Cwynar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The time has come to move forward and settle this matter. If we 
were to take a serious look, as to when our economy began to falter, 
it would probably fall very close to the time when the government 
initiated these actions against Microsoft. And, because of it the 
entire technology field has suffered. Please settle this case once 
and for all. Everyone likes to criticize and attack winners, and the 
majority of them are followers not leaders (as is Microsoft).
    I stand with Microsoft and its Chairman Bill Gates and urge the 
government to put and end to this unjustified act.
    Respectfully,
    William R. Cwynar



MTC-00009880

    FROM: Ken Sherman
    TO: MS ATR
    DATE: 1/10/02 9:21am
    SUBJECT: MS Settlement
    Guy Carpenter
    Guy Carpenter & Company of Pennsylvania
    Two Logan Square Telephone (215)864-3600
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Facsimile (215)636-9929
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing concerning the settlement negotiated between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. After three long years of 
litigation, this settlement represents an opportunity to more 
forward. The entire IT sector is ready to move on and get back to 
business, but it seems that there are those who still want to hold 
up the process.
    This settlement is very strong and requires Microsoft to make 
many changes. For example, Microsoft will be required to disclose 
information concerning certain internal interfaces in Windows. 
Microsoft's competitors will also be free to sue Microsoft if they 
feel the company is not complying with the agreement. Beyond that, 
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored throughout the entire process 
to ensure that they are following proper procedure.
    The concessions that Microsoft has made speak volumes to the 
fact that they want to help the IT sector get back to business. Let 
us help support the agreement by letting the terms speak for 
themselves. let us help not only our technology industry, but all 
industries which utilize technology such as insurance and finance, 
move forward and help get our economy back on track.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Sherman, CPCU, ARe
    Senior Vice President
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00009881

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:24am
Subject: My thoughts regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    the anti-trust campagne of microsoft is a damn shit.it is 
unbelivabel why microsoft think the people would trust a company 
whose company-politic is only spying, lying and changing results of 
studies. with their anti-trust campagne they make it only more 
worst.
    ps: what the fuck do u think should mean: ``americans for 
technology leadership''!? the usa-flag is not the symbol for every 
country on america! the people who live in mexiko, kanada, peru, 
brasil, etc. are also americans!



MTC-00009882

From: Tim(038)Sharon Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:28am
Subject: response to tunney act
    To whom this may concern, my comment is simple.microsoft has 
been declared a monopoly.With out adequate competition the consumer 
has been harmed in at least two distinct ways.
    1: lack of choice. 2: lack of robust, quality, products that do 
not have flaws that can cause loss of data and productivity.When I 
was a child, I was never given the right to negotiate my punishment 
when found out. why is this happening with microsoft. At your heart 
you are the last voice of justice, if you dont stand who will?Please 
restore proper competition to the market place.Do the right thing.



MTC-00009883

From: James Mitchell Ullman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:39am
Subject: Public interest
    Greetings,
    I am a concerned citizen who has been following the Federal 
Antitrust case against Microsoft and have, as is my civil duty, some 
things I would like to be made known to the judge.
    I am a technologist of several years experience and have noticed 
many trends in the industry which, to me, seemed less than right, 
much less legal. Microsoft is not the only company in this industry 
which has created, using underhanded tactics and most certainly 
illegal procedures, a monopoly of sorts. But, as has been the case 
in the past, Microsoft has been found guilty of not only breaking 
the law, but also damaging the economy in such a way that it may 
take decades for us to recover. I do not think that the government 
should have anything to do with the internal proceedings of the 
company as that would be fascism. I do, however, think that just as 
a war criminal who has committed crimes against all of humanity 
should make reparations to their enemies, that Microsoft Corporation 
should be punished.
    They have been let off of the hook before for the same reasons, 
yet when they are brought to court again, they are tried yet again 
instead of punished. Now, here we are at a major turning point in 
the case and they are asking that the public, which they harmed 
directly, should not be allowed to see nor hear the testimony 
against them. What ends are they trying to meet with this tactic? 
Possibly to shield themselves against the public outcry if they were 
to be let off again(as in the case of the over-lenient settlement 
between one-half of the prosecuting states and the Federal 
government)? I can testify plainly that Microsoft is an illegal 
monopoly on several industrial fronts, as I am forced daily to fix 
their problems which they force on the people of the United States 
of America who wish to use technology to get their jobs done in a 
timely, efficient manner. I have previously written mentioning an 
open letter written by Ralph Nader about the evanescent settlement 
in this case, but now I am petitioning that there be public access 
to the witness questioning. I am taken aback by the arrogance of 
Microsoft Corporation's demand, not request, that the Publicity in 
Taking Evidence Act of 1913 is deemed nonapplicable to their current 
status in court whereas it was previously found that it was under 
nearly the same circumstances. The public must know what is going 
on. They deserve to know, they have the right to know.
    Thank you very much for your time,
    James Mitchell Ullman
    Technical Specialist I
    Zach S. Henderson Library
    Georgia Southern University
    http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/jmullman
    Office: 912-681-0161



MTC-00009884

From: judhug
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:48am
Subject: End Anti- Initiative Prosecution
    The case against Microsoft should immediately be concluded.
    It gives the nation an idea that initiative and success is going 
to be punished.
    Hugh W Pagett
    681 Hawkins School Hs Rd
    Xenia, Ohio 45385



MTC-00009885

From: Aaron Alberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division

[[Page 25225]]

    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    ``The Proposed Final Judgment will provide a prompt, certain and 
effective remedy for consumers....'' To Whom It May Concern:
    I fully support the settlement that Microsoft has agreed to. 
Prompt, certain and effective remedy for comsumers will only be the 
direct result of a final judgement to which Microsoft agrees or that 
is in Microsoft's favor. Please finish this lawsuit quickly so that 
Microsoft can go on satisfying their customers, like me, by 
producing top quality software. Microsoft should not have to waste 
money on frivolous lawsuits like these. Having thoroughly studied 
the economics of competitive advantage, it is clear that the case 
against Microsoft is based on shoddy economics at best. Stop 
prosecuting successful corporations and get tough on criminals.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Alberg
    9027 W. Shorewood Dr.
    Apt. 603
    Mercer Island, WA 98040



MTC-00009886

From: Louis Ferreira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Though the majority of Linux lovers are posting this E-mail 
address in order to stop Microsoft's Settlement, I am all for it. 
Many people do not understand how important Microsoft is to today's 
high-tech world. Though I do not agree with there practices it is 
due to your poor judgment that the problem has become this big. If 
something was done years ago when apple had a good share of the 
market then maybe some good would have came from it, but as of today 
no good can come of punishing Microsoft. The reason I believe this 
is because Microsoft has established the standard and that is what 
is needed for computers to grow. The reason why other OS' can't 
compete against them now is because of this issue. Microsoft was 
never the best software and neither is Linux or Mac OS, but it is 
all that we have now. The hopes of other OS' like BEOS are nothing 
more then a dream now. Companies like this that seek to innovate 
must maintain reverse compatibility and yet they can not because any 
emulation of Windows that they try usually ends up much slower then 
windows. Probably the best thing you can do to Microsoft is make 
them release the code needed for other OS' to use windows 
applications, that way the best OS will win no matter what Microsoft 
does about it.
    Just My 2 Cents
    Louis W Ferreira III



MTC-00009887

From: Frank D'Angeli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsft public deposition
    Your Honor,
    Since MS declares that they are so important to the US and the 
economy and that they are such innovators, blah, blah, blah, I would 
like my right as a US citizen and computer user enforced which 
allows me to hear the depositon of MS executives.
    It was Bill Gates deposition which allowed the public to see the 
depth of Microsoft's soul and we should be allowed to see what the 
company that wants to control every aspect of our life is trying to 
hide from us. Please allow every fact about MS' predatory, 
monopolistic behavior be known to all that were hurt by them.
    Respectfully,
    Frank D'Angeli
    57 Pinkert Street
    Medford,MA 02155
    781.396.5815



MTC-00009888

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    James J. Trageser
    181 Sheldon Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15220
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    The intention of this letter is so that I may go on record as 
being a supporter of the proposed settlement that the Microsoft 
Corporation and the Department of Justice arrived at last November. 
The settlement brings an end to the three-year-old antitrust dispute 
that was costing both Microsoft and the federal government millions 
of dollars in court costs. I'm sure that Microsoft actually had to 
concede more than they would have liked in the settlement. In fact, 
the settlement places restrictions and obligations on technologies 
and products of Microsoft that were not even mentioned in the 
lawsuit at the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 
technology mentioned in the settlement hadn't even existed when the 
lawsuit was started! However, the IT industry will benefit from this 
settlement and so will the economy. It will generate competition by 
letting Microsoft's competitors in on trade secrets such as software 
codes that help programs run better on Windows, making their 
software run more effectively. I am pleased to see that the federal 
government and Microsoft could agree to terms, and I support the 
settlement that was reached. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James J. Trageser
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum
    Guy Carpenter & Company of Pennsylvania
    Two Logan Square
    Telephone (215) 864-3600
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
    Facsimile (215) 636-9929
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing concerning the settlement negotiated between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department. After three long years of 
litigation, this settlement represents an opportunity to move 
forward.
    The entire IT sector is ready to move on and get back to 
business, but it seems that there are those who still want to hold 
up the process.
    This settlement is very strong and requires Microsoft to make 
many changes. For example, Microsoft will be required to disclose 
information concerning certain internal interfaces in Windows. 
Microsoft's competitors will also be free to sue Microsoft if they 
feel the company is not complying with the agreement. Beyond that, 
Microsoft has agreed to be monitored throughout the entire process 
to ensure that they are following proper procedure. The concessions 
that Microsoft has made speak volumes to the fact that they want to 
help the IT sector get back to business. Let us help support the 
agreement by letting the terms speak for themselves.
    Let us help not only our technology industry, but all industries 
which utilize technology such as insurance and finance, move forward 
and help get our economy back on track.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Sherman, CPCU, ARe
    Senior Vice President
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00009889

From: shaun arral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:17am
Subject: They are making fools of you
    Lied in court.
    falsify evidence.
    bought your opinion (the settlement papaers).
    ``The sun, the moon, the stars
    Is that what you're thinking that you are
    As I'll disintegrate over time
    If I expect my body to try and keep up with my mind
    Today everything's mine'', Blind Melon



MTC-00009890

From: Jack L. Levy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jack L. Levy
    972 Cypress Drive
    Delray Beach, Florida 33483
    (561) 279-9099 [email protected]
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my thoughts on the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I believe that this 
litigation should not have been brought forth by the Justice 
Department, in the first place. There are many Americans who 
seriously question whether Microsoft has in fact broken any laws 
that would warrant a suit that has lasted for three years, all the 
while causing substantial financial hardship to the corporation and 
its many investors. The federal government should leave Microsoft

[[Page 25226]]

alone, and pursue more important matters that are affecting our 
nation currently. Although this company may have made mistakes 
during it's rapid growth, no one can question the substantial 
contribution that Microsoft has made to the computer industry. There 
are many people who believe that the operating systems created by 
Microsoft may very well be the chief reason for the viability of one 
of our largest and most successful industries.
    I believe that the settlement that has been reached is both fair 
and reasonable to everyone involved. Microsoft will be making 
numerous changes with its software and business practices. For 
example, some of the changes include but are not limited to the 
following: better relations with computer makers and software 
developers, internal interface disclosure, and a three-person 
technical committee to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. The recession has had a devastating effect on both 
government and industry. Many private investors have suffered non-
recoverable losses, especially those who have invested in the 
technology sector. It is extremely important that the technology 
industry be allowed to concentrate on improving business, and not 
defending what many feel to be frivolous lawsuits. It is in the best 
interests of everyone involved to see this settlement enacted as 
soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Jack L. Levy



MTC-00009891

From: Heins, Jill
To: `Microsoft.atr (a) usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the Clinton-era Anti-trust legal abuse. The Microsoft 
trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, 
and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. 
Consumers would rather see competition encouraged. The investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, 
the industry, and the American economy. I support the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jill M. Heins
    7833 Garnett
    Lenexa, KS 66214
    jill.heins@vetmedpub. com



MTC-00009892

From: Joe Amoroso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a citizen, I find it very disheartening that so many states 
seem to see this suit as a means of generating revenue. The facade 
of protecting the ``public interest'' when really acting to put $$ 
in the State's Treasury is in itself a fraud against the public 
interest.
    This is not the only instance of such behavior by the several 
states and I would ask the Justice system to recognize this 
transparent money-grab and deal fairly, openly and honestly with the 
issue at hand--i.e. what damage has been caused to the citizens--
this is the essence of ``public'' interest; State Treasuries and 
their viability, although, are a ``public interest'' issue, robbery 
of private corporations to maintain such Treasuries is not.
    joseph amoroso
    pobox 22421
    baltimore, md 21203
    410-659-0097



MTC-00009893

From: David W. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston University, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as 
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the 
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by 
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting 
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in 
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards. 
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism 
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
    To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not 
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to 
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not 
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets 
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to 
overturn this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Hill
    Brighton, Massachusetts



MTC-00009894

From: Delmonte, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:18am
    First of all thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
    My main focus is the pattern that Microsoft has exhibited over 
the 15 years that I have been involved in the IT arena.
    The first negative experience was one which happened with a 
company called Stacker, in which it was proved that Microsoft had 
illegally used their file compression scheme, by the time the issue 
was settled the company no longer was viable and in fact is no 
longer in existence.
    The next example is the competition between Microsoft and 
Netscape and how in a variety of actions which I am sure you are 
familiar made the company loose most of it's relevance in the PC 
arena, it still has a presence in the Linux arena, but that may 
change as well depending on how Microsoft handles that or is allowed 
to handle that arena in the future.
    The main problem I see is one of ethical behavior, they do push 
the limits and go beyond as in the Stacker case in every area that 
they see is important, and one may think that this is how business 
is done, the stronger survive. But when it is at the cost of 
innovation by individuals or small concerns, which Microsoft is 
eliminating more and more due to it's size and influence, I think 
that the American public and entrepreneurs have lost incredible 
opportunities due to what I consider predatory behavior.
    The level of excitement due to opportunities available to 
individuals in the 1980's was palpable across the whole Silicon 
Valley in which I worked at the time, as the 1990's approached this 
level of entrepreneurship decreased steadily.
    Some of it is due to the maturing of the industry, some of it 
due to standardization all of which are good. But much of it has to 
do with Microsoft getting involved in so many areas of the personal 
computer arena that it left less and less space for the smaller less 
financially endowed institutions to contribute to the progress of a 
field that still has wonderful opportunities if this level of 
entrepreneurship is allowed to flourish again.
    Unfortunately much of this has been squelched in the US, but 
with the arrival of Linux and what it can contribute and has 
contributed from many areas across the globe there is some activity 
in this entrepreneur-friendly environment that has received a lot of 
focus in the last couple of years.
    I would suggest that the American technologists would be much 
more interested in putting an effort again into the IT arena if a 
more favorable environment was fostered by curtailing some of the 
more obvious actions that Microsoft has taken, and I am sure that 
that venture capitalists would support this effort since the rewards 
are still very high.
    What I would suggest is to split the company into separate 
entities in all senses, applications and operating systems are two 
of the ones that have been suggested.
    And if Microsoft wants to enter a new arena in the computer 
industry (and that has to be based on a well-defined criteria) then 
the amount of money they can put in that concern cannot be more than 
the best financed institution that is already present in that arena. 
If none are in existence a criteria for that has to be established 
as well, so that other can compete on equal footing.
    Once that concern is established Microsoft cannot contribute any 
further funds, otherwise it would perpetually be competing in an 
arena even it's efforts were not successful, creating an artificial 
concern and hampering competitiveness.
    If the company failed they should not be permitted to enter that 
arena for a pre-specified amount of time, to allow those who had 
good ideas to flourish without the annoyance of having another 
company artificially affecting the competitive environment to that 
specific arena.
    I understand that this may have a short-term (1-2 years) effect 
on the economy, but the long-term effects would be a healthy, 
creative, growing and dominating industry for the US.
    Tom Delmonte
    WorldCom--Revenue & Segment Reporting
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Voice: (719) 535-1562
    vnet: 622-1562



MTC-00009895

From: Olie Echevarria

[[Page 25227]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:26am
Subject: Microsoft pre-trial hearing motion
    To whom it may concern,
    In light of the Microsoft motion to bar the public from pre-
trial hearings, I humbly ask that court deny the motion. Here is why 
I believe that the motion should denied.
    In my opinion, as a citizen of the United States of America, 
obedient and tax paying citizen, it is my right to know what is 
going in the American judicial system. We are a society of 
information that is readily available to anyone. Microsoft wants to 
deny the citizens of this nation information that it would deem a 
public relations nightmare because of the current anti-trust 
proceedings that are occurring against it. This information, the 
pre-trial hearings, is not a privilige but a right to all citizens 
of this country since this will show their american tax dollars at 
work.
    The Attorney Generals and judge doing their job. I urge you deny 
this motion without question. Thank you,
    Your obedient citizen,
    Orlando Echevarria
    Orlando Echevarria
    Webmaster
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00009896

From: Doris Lippincott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to you regarding the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case. I am writing to you from a Windows platform and 
through Hotmail. Although I do not consider myself a computer expert 
I think that it is a long stretch to consider me a victim of 
Microsoft. I appreciate what I have gotten from Microsoft and wish 
that you would settle this case. In my mind, since you have the 
extraordinary power of the federal government behind you, it is 
incumbant on you to be extraordinarily careful not to misuse this 
power for personal aggrandizement or to back those who feel the heat 
from Microsoft's innovation.
    Robert H. Lippincott, Jr.



MTC-00009897

From: pobox.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:52am
Subject: Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
    The proposed settlement in this case is a good beginning but it 
does not go far enough. While providing greater freedom to the 
resellers of Microsoft Windows and systems that run Microsoft 
Windows, it does nothing to insure future abuses do not occur. Due 
to this, I strongly encourage the court to amend this agreement with 
more stringent requirements.
    Best Regards,
    Tim Malloroy



MTC-00009898

From: Joshua Adam Ginsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings--
    I'm sending you a copy of an email that I send to the Attorneys 
General of the states that did not agree to the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, 
who in my opinion is serving his constituents in the finest of 
fashions, suggested that I copy you on that email. It is below. 
Thank you for your time, and best of luck to you.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Adam Ginsberg
    Attorneys General--
    First I would like to commend you and your respective states to 
refusing to back down to Microsoft in light of its blatant violation 
of consumer rights and anti-trust laws. You do your constituents a 
great service.
    As a member of the technology community, I'd like to provide you 
with some input regarding your proposals to the court that might 
help you better understand some of the interests of those most 
affected by your proposals.
    I think it's a safe thing to say that it would be 
counterproductive towards punishing monopolistic practices by 
extending a monopoly. The rumors that you will propose that 
Microsoft be required to continue developing MS Office for the MacOS 
seem to suggest you agree.
    In this light, let me point you to http://www.redhat.com/about/
presscenter/2001/press--usschools.html
    To summarize this article's contents, RedHat Linux Systems has 
proposed an alternative to the settlement the DOJ and other states 
have accepted. Instead of extending the Microsoft monopoly by 
letting them install more copies of Windows across our nation's 
poorest schools, RedHat proposes that the money that would have been 
spent on purchasing more copies of Windows and more support for them 
be used to purchase more hardware, and RedHat will donate copies of 
Linux and provide support at no cost. Students would be exposed to a 
cutting edge desktop operating system and be enlightened to the 
software world outside the Microsoft monopoly.
    And even requiring MS to develop Office for Linux (as it's been 
reported you seek) would be fruitless, because Linux users have 
available to them complete Office suites for free with as much 
functionality as the Microsoft suites. Examples are the GNOME Office 
Suite (http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office) the KOffice Suite (http://
www.koffice.org) and most notably Sun's StarOffice (http://
www.sun.com/staroffice).
    Again I commend your resolve to find the right solution as 
opposed to the easy solution. I appreciate your openness to 
suggestion. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Ginsberg



MTC-00009899

From: DR Basso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement proposal
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a fraud on the consumers of 
this country. It does not adequately address the practices the 
company undertook to draw public scrutiny in the first place and it 
rewards the monopoly with a backdoor entrance into one of the major 
areas of technology where it lags behind its competitors ? the 
education market. Far from reigning in a conglomerate that used its 
market position to terrorize competitors, this settlement gives 
Microsoft an even larger market share in education.
    The software proposed is almost entirely for Windows computers. 
The offer provides only a very limited selection for competing 
operating systems such as Mac OS.
    Public school officials, under the gun to get the most ``stuff'' 
they can get for as little money, will have little choice bu to take 
up this offer ? thereby expanding the company's reach and dealing a 
severe blow to firms such as Apple.
    Besides Apple, however, there are other firms that make software 
that compete with the items Microsoft proposes to offer schools. Why 
should those firms be injured in the form of fewer sales by a 
settlement that is meant to punish Microsoft? It makes no sense to 
try and increase competition by injuring the competitors you seek to 
aid.
    Also, why should schools have to settle for refurbished and 
outdated computers. If Microsoft really plans to offer computers to 
schools, it should be ordered to purchase new machines that will 
have a long shelf life (in the relative world of computers). 
Refurbished machines probably already are near the end of their 
useful life in regards to what new programs they may be able to run.
    Finally, I believe the total value of the settlement is far 
below the actual damage done to competitors. The value should be 
increased, perhaps even doubled.
    Daniel R. Basso



MTC-00009900

From: Kayler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement. I would like to see the 
litigation ended. I think it's been bad for the economy. I wish the 
whole thing had never been started in the first place.
    Kayler
    ``A proper concept of government is a voluntary one.''
    ``The only true revolution is Capitalism--the Liberal 
Revolution.''--Andrew J. Galambos
    Join the discussion of Freedom at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
volitional--science
    Check out true freedom at:
    http://www.bridgetofreedom.com
    The importance of gratitude:
    http://www.e-gratitude.com/home/index.cfm'sourcegid=100100129



MTC-00009901

From: marty (038) janet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Didn't the Government also cause us to have all these ``Baby 
Bell Telephone Company's'' by breaking up AT&T. The Quality of 
services went down and prices went up. My mail now takes two to 
three times longer to get to me than when a stamp cost .10 cents. 
And it never got lost back then

[[Page 25228]]

either. Now they want another price increase for slower, incompetent 
service. The Government needs butt out of Microsoft's pocket, and 
business and allow business to flourish. It's good for our economy.
    Marty Turner



MTC-00009902

From: F P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:32pm
Subject: Final Judgment
    I do not believe that the proposed Final Judgement (http://
www.microsoft.com/presspass/trial/nov01/11-02settlement.asp) serves 
the public interest. Section J.1. is of particular concern, since it 
could be used to limit the usefulness of non-Microsoft middleware, 
applications, or even other computers trying to interact with these 
sections of API or Communications Protocols, and help ensure that 
Microsoft can continue to extend its monopoly on such products by 
keeping this information secret. Since none of the listed items 
benefit significantly from secrecy (good security is difficult to 
break even with full disclosure), I believe that these should be 
made available to allow fair competition in the future, with the 
single exception of individual keys for Microsoft Middleware for the 
purpose of protecting their identity.
    I also note a distinct lack of any penalty for Microsoft's past 
actions that made them an illegal monopoly.
    I believe that some form of remedy should be used, to reduce the 
chance that Microsoft or another corporation attempts to use simular 
practices in the future. As a split of the company has been 
rejected, I'd recommend a monetary remedy.
    Frederick H. Page
    1305 Kathy Drive
    Yardley, PA 19067



MTC-00009903

From: Glen DeGarmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First, a personal comment from a long-time computer user: I 
think the proposed settlement is little more than political window 
dressing given Microsoft's well documented illegal activities as the 
9,000 pound gorilla monopoly of computer operating systems. 
Microsoft's practice of bundling applications with its Windows OSs 
has as its ultimate goal eliminating competitors and establishing 
Microsoft as the sole provider of software for desktop computers. 
Microsoft's use of the term ``innovations'' to justify this practice 
is sheer nonsense...there is no innovation worthy of the term. The 
proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's illegal 
operations which effect tens of millions of consumers.
    Second, proposed additional remedies:
    (1) Require Microsoft market and make readily available to all 
consumers ``clean'' versions of its desktop operating systems with 
NO bundled applications. By ``clean'' I mean OSs that have been 
completely stripped of all non-OS applications (e.g., browser, cd 
burner, multimedia applications, etc., etc.). Do not permit, under 
the definition of the term ``clean,'' any application not absolutely 
required for the core OS to operate properly or any application that 
later can be removed without effecting the core operation of the OS 
if the consumer chooses. Microsoft's attorneys will find loopholes 
if the definition is not explicit. By clean, I mean CLEAN.
    (2) Require Microsoft to make public all the ``hooks'' to all 
its currently supported, and future, OSs to permit other software 
developers to design applications that work seamlessly with all 
currently supported and future Microsoft, desktop OSs. That 
requirement should mandate information about ``hooks'' be made 
readily available to all non Microsoft designers of applications 
during the earliest design of beta versions of any new desktop OS, 
and mandate that updates be made immediately available as a new OS 
proceeds through development and testing. The requirement must 
include information about ALL the hooks that Microsoft's designers 
of applications use to make Microsoft's own, or sponsored, 
applications work seamlessly with its desktop OSs...NO EXCEPTIONS!!
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Glen DeGarmo, Ph.D.
    732 Madison St. NE
    Albuquerque, NM 87110
    (505) 266-6472



MTC-00009904

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    AG Ashcroft,
    It is time that this dog is laid to rest, it will just not hunt 
anymore. Microsoft has been an innovator in technology and it is not 
required that they be punished. Let this competitor driven attempt 
die, it is time to move on.
    Please let it be heard that I am one of many Americans whom 
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to 
settle this lawsuit
    Respectfully,
    Bruce Mann
    CANAC
    (281) 588-3160 (phone)
    (281) 588-3041 (fax)
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    http://www.canac.com
    ``Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science 
of managements says is possible.''
    General Colin Powell



MTC-00009905

From: H. Leslie Priday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:35pm
Subject: I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust
    I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse



MTC-00009906

From: Ralph crosswhite
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/10/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Federal Government can be more responsive to 
the claimants in this ``Settlement'', and void the ``Settlement'' as 
it is at this time. Microsoft needs to be made aware of how serious 
their Anti-Trust actions have affected their competitors, and the 
Voting Public.
    The penalities imposed are not severe enough, nor do they change 
the business practices of Microsoft to a more ethical standard.
    Breaking up the company may be too severe, however large 
monetary fines, and the restriction from engaging in any outside 
enterprise that is now competitive, should be included.
    Ralph Crosswhite



MTC-00009907

From: Ben /Joyce Loving
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to stop persecuting Bill Gates and Microsoft for 
being smart and able, and doing things to help all the world. It is 
ridiculous to spend taxpayer money to prosecute this company for 
antitrust activities. I use their software and also use software of 
competing companies which is fully compatible with Microsoft 
products.
    Stop the mindset of punishing the smart people who do good. They 
do not owe anything to the less smart and less energetic. Everyone 
has choices--it is up to each one of us to exercise these choices in 
the best and most productive manner for us.
    Make a choice NOW!
    [email protected]



MTC-00009908

From: Mike Lindley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:47pm
Subject: Do they own you, too?
    HI,
    If this gets read, I appreciate your time. Microsoft Corporation 
has been abusing its position for years and years, this case just 
happen to be brought forth.
    They were found guilty in the Apple-threat part of the original 
case and that alone is evidence of their monopolistic practices.
    Compaq, Dell, Gateway, e-Machines, Hewlett-Packard,etc. All must 
do the bidding of Microsoft because without the OS, they can't sell 
their computers.
    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not let this company live by their own 
rules simply because they were clever enough to figure out how to 
control the market.
    The fact that they have managed to eak Apple out of the school 
market and the graphics market is evidence enough NOT of the quality 
they put out but because of the THEIR ABILITY TO THREATEN THE 
MARKETPLACE. They were even found guilty of libel when they put an 
ad campaign out against Novell when Novell took over Cambridge 
Technology Partners.
    It should be obvious enough: They have 96.4% of the WORLD MARKET 
SHARE in operating systems. Even AT&T never had it that good.
    STOP THEM OR THEY WILL OWN US ALL. They only want to rule the 
world and if not stopped, they will.
    Thanks,
    Mike Lindley

[[Page 25229]]



MTC-00009909

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:53pm
Subject: settlement
    Hello, this email is to share my opinion that the proposed 
settlement with microsoft is NOT in the public interest. The 
settlement does very little to detour microsoft from further illegal 
operations, and does not adequately punish microsoft for it's past 
actions.
    Thank you,
    David Lantz
    CAD/CAM/MIS
    Protech Armored Products
    158 Hubbard Ave
    Pittsfield, MA, 01201
    413.684.3104 (phone)
    413.684.4166



MTC-00009910

From: LOIS AMACHER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1-10-2002
    As a consumer, I would like to express my hopes that this 
antitrust lawsuit be settled as soon as possible.
    President Bush and Microsoft will settle if not interfered with.
    I support this settlement.
    Lois Amacher
    Carmichael, CA



MTC-00009911

From: Roger Bowser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:54pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    sir--
    i have been heavily involved in computers since 1983. i like the 
windws operating system much more than any other system.
    please stop this worthless prosecution started by a president 
with other things on his mind. we need windows.



MTC-00009912

From: Robert G Kraatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Ashcroft:
    Get the government (State and Federal) off the back of 
Microsoft! Bill Gates and Microsoft have done more positive things 
for this country than all of posturing people in our Senate 
combined.
    We need to tell our power hungry politicians to get out of the 
way since only President Bush and Mr. Rumsfield seem to be both 
willing and able to lead in a positive direction. You have great 
promise but it is time to get out front and lead.
    Robert G. Kraatz
    24321 Dry Canyon Cold Creek Road
    Calabasas, CA 91302



MTC-00009913

From: Kopecki, Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Clearly this settlement should be accomplished. Enough already 
of the competitive ``whiners'' trying to weaken Microsoft. In a free 
market the fit find a way to survive and prosper. The Microsoft 
technology has done more good than bad for this country. Tradeoffs 
exist in all facets of the business environment. Darwinism occurs. 
Microsoft should be viewed for their positive contributions to our 
country and society and should not be ``punished'' excessively 
because they did not always in the best interest of their 
competition.
    Ronald J. Kopecki
    Corporate Vice President, Sales
    Intecom, an EADS Telecom Company
    972.855.8340 (O)
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00009915

From: Sam Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is definitely time to put a stop to this nonsense about 
Microsoft!
    Sam Heath
    [email protected]



MTC-00009916

From: thomas l easton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    Please end this ridiculous persecution of a company just because 
it is successful. We have funded this prosecution long enough. The 
only thing Microsoft is guilty of is making smart business 
decisions.
    Thank You.
    Thomas l. Easton
    835w. lusher ave.
    Elkhart, In. 4617
    219-293-2495



MTC-00009917

From: Tony Dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I request you to settle the lawsuit with MS because they are NOT 
a monopoly. I am a consumer and have the option of NOT using windows 
if I chose.
    Please stop this unnecessary case and use the money to prosecute 
real criminals.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Dalton



MTC-00009918

From: Duke Gersema
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern:
    Re: Acceptance of the Microsoft settlement.
    First, let me say that I am not particularly a fan of Microsoft. 
They charge too much for their products, they are restrictive and 
arrogant. That said, I think the whole suit against Microsoft should 
never have happened and should be dismissed outright, immediately. 
The current proposed settlement goes too far but should be agreed to 
if it is the best resolution that can be made at this late date.
    Here are my reasons:
    The Justice Department has far better things to do,
    This lawsuit has drained too much time and money from the 
taxpayers,
    Microsoft is already systematically ``shooting itself in the 
foot'' and will not retain its market dominance.
    Though arrogant, Microsoft has increased the productivity of 
businesses exponentially and brought capabilities to people that 
they did not even dream of two decades ago.
    This lawsuit is supposed to ``protect the consumers'' but the 
existence of Microsoft has benefited the consumer and this lawsuit 
will add no protection to the American consumer.
    Please accept this settlement and move on to something 
productive.
    Thank you for allowing my comments.
    Douglas W. Gersema
    [email protected]



MTC-00009919

From: John Mcdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:06pm
Subject: ms case
    The sooner the trial is over the better for everyone. At the 
same time I really don't see any problem with breaking MS into 
different parts. If their code is so good and developed the way they 
like to claim that it is, then there shouldn't be any problem with a 
separate company developing Office to run on Windows for example. 
That is unless they have something to hide, and I personally suspect 
they have plenty. Why is it that everything has to be incorporated 
into the system. Why can't they simply develop Windows and then 
programs and or applications can then be installed separately at a 
later time. MS could certainly sell these other products, people 
could purchase them if they want and install them at their leisure. 
I'll tell you why I think they are doing it the way they are: they 
are greedy bastards that only care about the bottom line.
    They haven't innovated anything they've only incorporated ideas 
they either borrowed or bought from someone else.
    They crank out one OS after another all the while adding things 
that somehow cut the competition.
    Their software is so full of holes it's laughable. Patch after 
patch after patch. Things that could have been prevented had they 
taken the time to do it right instead of forcing it sooner to make 
more money. They already have most of the PC market right? Why push 
out the new stuff so fast? It's all about getting our money, why 
else would they be now trying to tell us that we should pay them 
monthly or whatever for a service. What exactly are they going to 
offer that doesn't already exist. Nothing, they'll resole an old 
shoe and push it as something new. What a joke. That said thing is I 
really liked 95 when it came out, but that's all changed.



MTC-00009920

From: John Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If the Government is so against you (and us), have them remove 
all Microsoft products

[[Page 25230]]

from all of their computers. See how they like that!



MTC-00009921

From: mavis caracostas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft
    To continue this vindictive assault on Microsoft is insane! The 
case is against superiority of one company over others, and has led 
to the recession we are now suffering. It was ill-advised from the 
inception, and I would like to see it ended ASAP.
    Mavis M. Caracostas
    Colorado Springs, Co.
    80904



MTC-00009922

From: Joseph G. Grochowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    John Ashcroft:
    Stop the government action against Microsoft immediately. This 
has done nothing but hurt the consumer. Continuing this action begun 
by a disreputable administration only further erodes the public 
confidence. And stop State Attorneys General from continuing their 
harmfull actions.
    Joseph Grochowski
    724 Ardmore Ave
    Redlands CA 92374
    (909)793-3495



MTC-00009923

From: Hart Slater
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If the purpose of the legal assault against Microsoft is 
protection of the consumer , please explain how this ``consumer ``/
taxpayer is protected ? I lost much of my retirement nest egg 
because of the stockmarket response to the DOJ action ; and, 
further, I would like to know how much this suit has cost the 
taxpayers, both in government costs as well as legal costs Microsoft 
has had to pass on to consumers. Very costly ``protection'' !!!!
    Hart Slater,
    835 Shenandoah Road,
    Lexington, Virginia
    hart slater [email protected]>



MTC-00009924

From: Paul Greatbatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:14pm
Subject: ...and it just keeps going on until YOU do something about 
it!!
    Microsoft apparently tried to rig a ZDNet UK online poll, 
according to the news outlet:
    ``By 21 December, more than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5 
percent), said they planned to deliver some applications by Web 
services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly 
half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent said 
they planned to use Microsoft .Net-- less than the figure (23.5 
percent) planning to use neither.
    But by the time the poll closed, on 5 January, the position had 
dramatically changed, with three quarters of voters claiming to be 
implementing .Net. This apparent sudden change of heart over the 
Christmas period appears to be the result of a concerted campaign 
within Microsoft.
    ZDNet UK logs reveal rather obvious vote rigging, and prove that 
it originated from within Microsoft [...]''
    Best Regards,
    Paul



MTC-00009925

From: Oropeza, Jenny
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    JENNY OROPEZA (D)
    Assemblymember, 55th District
    Long Beach, California
    916/319-2055
    916/319-2155 (fax)



MTC-00009925 0001

    STATE CAPITOL
    P.O. BOX 942849
    SACRAMENTO. CA 94249-0055
    (916) 319-2055
    FAX (916) 319.2155
    DISTRICT OFFICE
    ONE CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 320
    CARSON. CA 90745
    (310) 518-3324
    FAX (310) 518-35,08
    COMMITTEES:
    AGRICULTURE
    BUDGET
    ELECTIONS. REAPPORTIONMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
    JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMY
    TRANSPORTATION
    SUBCOMMITTEES:
    CHAIR. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
    BUDGET SUB 5, TRANSPORTATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    SELECT COMMITTEES:
    CHAIR, LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN
    TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
    AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
    CALIFORNIA. MEXICO AFFAIRS
    CALIFORNIA PORTS
    January 10, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to 
consumers and businesses, as well as providing opportunities for 
other software companies to develop programs for the Windows 
platform. The provisions of the proposed settlement, worked out with 
one of the nation's top mediators, will be good for consumers, 
businesses, the tech sector and the economy as a whole.
    The proposed settlement is fair. It proposes significant changes 
in the way Microsoft handles its software, in addition to preventing 
Microsoft from abusing the strength that it derives from its 
operating system. However, the proposed settlement also allows the 
company to continue innovating in all areas of software development. 
I fully support the Department of Justice and the nine Attorney 
Generals for their efforts to finally put an end to this case and 
agree to a settlement that is in our nation's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    JENNY OROPEZA
    Assemblymember 55th District (D--Long Beach, California)



MTC-00009925--0002



MTC-00009926

From: Mary Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Department of Justice:
    I am sending this email to urge you to settle the Microsoft 
case. The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of 
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are 
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the 
technology market and the entire national economy.
    This case should never have been brought by the DOJ during the 
Clinton administration. I have always believed that Microsoft is a 
very fierce competitor in a rapidly changing technology world, and 
that Microsoft has done far more good than harm to consumers. In 
fact, it appears that the only ones whining and crying are those 
that lost a share of the computer business due to their own 
ineffectiveness, and not because Microsoft took it from them. There 
is no monopoly on progressive thinking as Microsoft has done and 
continues to do, and it certainly should not be a crime. Those that 
cannot compete should get out of the business.
    Respectfully,
    Mary J. Silva
    3429 Maywood Drive
    Richmond, CA 94803
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009927

From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am writing to ask that the Microsoft Antitrust battle be put 
to an end as soon as possible. In my opinion (as well as the 
majority of the public), this suit has been a witch hunt driven by 
Microsoft's industry competitors from the start. Illegal 
monopolistic action can not be assumed simply because of a high 
market share. There was no proof of anti-competitive action, unless 
you believe striving to be #1 in an industry is necessarilly anti-
competitive. The only organization in this country that has been 
thwarting competition is the federal government. Please take action 
to discontinue this charade immediately.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Jones



MTC-00009928

From: Bret Nelson

[[Page 25231]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Glacier
    Atty Gen Ashcroft,
    I want to thank you for your hard work for our nation under 
difficult circumstances and unwarranted scrutiny.
    I am writing in support to some sort of end to this expensive 
ringer that Microsoft is being put through. I would say that if, 
indeed, Microsoft is guilty of a crime that I would be happy to see 
the perpetrators brought to justice, even if the process is costly. 
However, it also seems to me that in-as-much as Microsoft has 
competitors, the overall case is unjustifiable on the surface. It 
appears to me that the case is a remnant of the Clinton 
administration that needs to be brought to a close (we all need 
closure from that administration).
    I wonder how those bend on Microsoft's demise would feel if the 
government had decided that rather than spending $1,000,000 on 
litigation they would award $500,000 to Mircosoft's number one 
competitor to develop a more competitive operating system to assure 
that Microsoft hadn't such an advantage in the market place. This of 
course would cut tax-payers expenditures in half. Of course, this 
notion is cockeyed, but it would have shown more responsibility with 
the taxpayer's purse than Janet Reno was want to do when this whole 
thing started.
    Once again, thank you for all your efforts. I'm glad that you 
were confirmed and I feel confident that you bring a positive chord 
to the new Bush chorus which is serving the country well in this 
time of crisis.
    As a final note, I pray that your office is concerned with 
expediting the process of finding and punishing our citizen, two-
bit, homegrown terrorists. I feel very confident that we can handle 
every foreign threat if only we can eliminate the threats from the 
Timothy McVie's of our homeland. I'm much more concerned about 
threats from within from Uni-bombers than from long-range bombers 
and I fear the wrongs committed by power-hungry politicians elected 
at home than from foreign regimes who exercise authority over cactus 
and rocks. Most of all I fear the judgments of God more than man and 
I hope that your office can hand back to the people the right to 
worship God according to the dictates of their conscience wherever 
they be--home, class, court or elsewhere. I believe the less we fear 
man, the more apt we become to fear God again, an guiding light this 
country needs--personal responsibility based on Judeo-Christian 
values so that strict laws and punishments become less needed and 
hense, considerably less costly to enforce.
    Sincerely
    NAI Capital Commercial Real Estate
    Bret
    Bret D. Nelson
    Vice President
    1712 19th Street, Suite 220
    Bakersfield, California 93301
    661-864-1000--phone
    661-864-1011--fax
    661-201-9855--mobile
    [email protected]
    www.naicapital.com
    www.naidirect.com



MTC-00009929

From: john r. emra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Stop this constant bickering and settle this 
case.
    John R.Emra
    3529 SE Doubleton Drive
    Stuart Fl.34997-5627



MTC-00009930

From: Jane Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I urge you to support the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft along with the 9 states who have 
reached agreement.
    Enough taxpayer money has been spent to harass Microsoft and 
this gives us the opportunity to end it.
    Sincerely,
    Jane M. Smith
    2104 Chestnut Hill Drive
    Cinnaminson, NJ. 08077



MTC-00009931

From: Bryan Fandrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    The U.S. Government lawsuit didn't solve a problem.
    The U.S. Government is the problem.
    The Sherman Act is a relic and should be repealed posthaste. The 
whole procedure was a costly waste of time except for the lawyers 
involved.
    Settle it as leniently and expeditiously as possible to 
discourage future pointless government interference.
    Sincerely.
    B.Fandrich.



MTC-00009932

From: Stan Dickison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all due respect, it's time to move on. The settlement 
reached by the Justice Department is perfectly fine. There are many 
more important issues in which the Justice Department needs to be 
involved.
    Stan Dickison



MTC-00009933

From: Palmarin Merges
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Dept. of Justice,
    Leave Microsoft alone.
    Stop penalizing commercial success.
    If I want to buy Microsoft products, let me decide. If other 
competitors want to compete they can create a better product. FREE 
ENTERPRISE. LET THE CONSUMER DRIVE THE MARKET NOT THE GOVERNMENT or 
whiny competitors. Stop wasting my money on this decade-long 
competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft.
    ``The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of 
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are 
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the 
technology market and the entire national economy.'' (from an ACU 
article)
    Do not divert any more government funds from investigating 
harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. Leave 
Microsoft alone.
    ``The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice, 
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related 
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing 
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources 
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.'' 
(from an ACU article) DO NOT continue this litigation.
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Palmarin P. Merges



MTC-00009934

From: Kevin Kahley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:27pm
Subject: Reasons for Change
    Hello,
    I would like to discuss my concerns for Microsoft's continuing 
monopoly and the effects upon the education of computer experts in 
the future. I have a bachelors degree in computer engineering and am 
currently working on a masters in computer science. During my junior 
high and high school years the only machines that I used ran 
Microsoft Windows. Having only used Windows until college placed a 
rather large learning curve in front of me as I entered the serious 
computer science arena. I am not saying that Windows is useless, my 
parents happily and productivly use it. However, choices in computer 
operating systems need to be widely avaliable to our younger 
children so their education will not be sheltered until they reach 
college. Having more choices in operating systems will widen the 
schools of thought in computer science and lead to a better world 
for all.
    Thank you.



MTC-00009935

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The federal government should back off the case against 
Microsoft. Microsoft has successfully standardized the industry for 
operating systems which has allowed the unparalleled growth in 
technology.
    I remember when Macintosh was competing with Windows. Though 
Macintosh was a better product (and I'm a 10 share Microsoft 
shareholder), Windows won. That was probably the best thing to 
happen to the computer industry.
    Microsoft may have made some minor mistakes, but nothing that 
would justify a large settlement of such a magnitude.
    Evan Van Ness

[[Page 25232]]



MTC-00009936

From: James Wobser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:30pm
Subject: US Government vs. Microsoft Corp.
    Dear Sirs-
    Please end all legal action against the Microsoft Corp and let 
the market determine the outcome.
    Thank you,
    James Wobser



MTC-00009937

From: Thomas E. Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Putting this Reno farce behind us is long overdue.



MTC-00009938

From: Merle J VanDyke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Senator Ashcroft Please settle (curtail) this legal action 
of the last 9 states now.
    Merle VanDyke



MTC-00009939

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Attorney General:
    I believe that it is a vital interest for our country that when 
the Justice Department settles a case with a litigant, in Antitrust 
or any other part of the department, that it ensures that it has 
settled the case. It is unconscionable that the economic security of 
our country be endangered by the political desires of any one of the 
50 state Attorneys General. Please do your best to ensure that the 
judiciary accepts the terms of your department's settlement of the 
Microsoft case, and see that it is applied nationwide.
    Thank you for all of your good work in this dangerous time for 
our country.
    Cordially,
    William R. Kanninen
    457 Spring Lane
    Ocala, FL 34472
    352-687-0123
    352-895-7528 (cell)
    801-409-6494 (Fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00009940

From: Steven M Stallings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Attorney General,
    Please stop spending taxpayer money on the competitor-driven 
suit against Microsoft. I have been a professional software 
developer for over thirty years and have used many software products 
from many different vendors in addition to Microsoft. The 
Information Industry is now at a difficult point where we cannot 
afford to hamper its ability to contribute to the economy and to 
enhance every aspect of government, business and personal life. 
Microsoft's competitors are trying to take advantage of a few 
misdeeds of this corporate giant and those competitors are no less 
guilty of such misdeeds themselves. The current settlement is fair 
and sufficiently addresses the past problems and provides a just 
path for the future of Microsoft, its competitors and the public.
    It's time that the U.S. Department of Justice and the States 
Departments of Justice to move forward to other more pressing 
matters.
    Thanks for the service that the DOJ has provided in this lengthy 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Steven M Stallings



MTC-00009941

From: Jud Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:37pm
Subject: settlement
    I support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Gov. 
I urge you to support it, and encourage you to pass these sentiments 
along to the Federal judge. Thank you, and keep up the good work you 
have been doing. You have the trust of the American people. Keep in 
mind that we often are the silent majority.
    Jud Cox
    152 Hilltop Way
    Blowing Rock, NC 28605
    [email protected]



MTC-00009942

From: Joel Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust must be enforced
    Dear US Department of Justice:
    If we don't stop Microsoft now, we will have no choice or 
innovation in the future. Microsoft has apparently bought off the 
Bush Administration but we must not let that happen. Microsoft, like 
robbers barons of the past, will stop at nothing to eliminate the 
competition if given the chance. For example, see http://
vb.channelsupersearch.com/news/crn/32424.asp
    Sincerely,
    Joel Carlson,
    622 6th Ave,
    Fox Island, WA 98333



MTC-00009943

From: Willard Bass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    As a life-long professional in the field of computers, I wish to 
register my support for the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I 
believe that it encourages consumer product-choice, allows for 
continued product innovation by Microsoft and other software 
companies, and provides adequate safeguards to give software 
manufacturers other-than-Microsoft confidence in marketing their own 
products. Further, a settlement at this time is definitely in the 
public interest, in that it will free Department of Justice 
resources to pursue other anti-trust issues.
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their stated 
desire to settle this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Willard C. Bass



MTC-00009944

From: Alexander Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:42pm
Subject: against proposed settlement vs. Microsoft
    Dear Sirs,
    As you may have noticed: I'm no US citizen, but I'm concerned 
about the proposed settlement involving that Microsoft is going to 
supply US schools with software and equipment to settle some court 
cases against them. I'm against this because Microsoft will be able 
to further spread their software and, by this, gain greater market 
share than it already has. This is one step further towards a 
Microsoft software monopoly and this is definitively the worst thing 
that I can imagine for IT firms and home users. Some competition is 
good for Microsoft (and the entire software industry) because then 
they are forced to produce better software.
    Yours sincerely,
    Alexander Martinez
    Student of Computer Science
    Independant programmer
    78120 Furtwangen
    Germany



MTC-00009945

From: T. Aaron Metz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I am a 26-year-old college student at 
West Virginia University. I'm an active member of the community in 
Morgantown, WV and I believe that I represent a good majority of 
people my age with my student's lifestyle. I ask you to please end 
this persecution of Microsoft. There is absolutely no wrong in being 
the leader of an industry because you are the smartest and the 
fastest. But, for some reason, the individuals who are fighting 
against Microsoft believe that success and leadership is breaking 
the law. It's not Microsoft's fault that their competitors cannot 
keep up.
    Because of this lawsuit, the public as a whole has suffered. 
Look at the good Microsoft has done for society-Windows, easier 
access to information, and better hardware to work with, to name a 
few. You're probably reading this message on a Windows-run machine. 
Does that mean that Microsoft has a Monopoly or just the best 
product? I choose the latter and I believe that society has chosen 
the latter, as well. Microsoft has the capability to drive us 
through the 21st century with a fury, but this lawsuit has given 
them a Model T to drive us there. LET THEM BE!
    Need I mention the millions of taxpayers' dollars that have been 
wasted on this lawsuit? We need to end this mess and let Microsoft 
go on being successful, making money, and bettering society.
    Thank you for listening to my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    T. Aaron Metz



MTC-00009946

From: JOHN F BRISENDINE

[[Page 25233]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement arrangment negotiated by the Bush 
Administration and Microsoft. Please make every effort to end this 
litigation immediately. We have much more important priorities for 
our legal system to handle.
    John Frederick Brisendine
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    [email protected]



MTC-00009947

From: scott gould
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I just wanted to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
think that we/the United States and Local Governments should settle 
this lawsuit ASAP and let Microsoft go back to doing what they do 
best. In my opinion the high-tech industry and the nation in general 
would certainly be better off expending their energy, time and money 
on new software products rather that dragging out this legal action.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Gould



MTC-00009948

From: robert sirignano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I support the position that the US courts are wasting much money 
in there attempt to prosecute Microsoft. I do not believe it is a 
good use of tax payer monies. I further believe it has a negative 
effect on the computer software industry, and the US economy. I 
think that competition could create, and has the ability to create 
alternative software and platforms, and are not bound to Microsoft 
in any way. With the growing popularity of other platforms such as 
Linux, I believe that this lawsuit is a mute cause.
    Please help end this wasteful use of tax monies any way you are 
able. Thank you and your staff for your time and concern in reading 
my opinion.
    I am very happy to have you in DC, and know you are the best 
choice Our President could have made.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Sirignano



MTC-00009949

From: Morgan Philpot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:50pm
Subject: Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    The last few years have been most difficult for the technology 
industry. The Microsoft lawsuit that the Department of Justice has 
been engaged in has cost the industry and has taken millions of 
dollars away from matters of urgency that would make this country 
better. The original suit was persuaded by Microsoft competitors and 
unfortunately they used taxpayer dollars to push their competitive 
edge in the market.
    The settlement agreed upon by the Department of Justice and the 
Microsoft Company is at this time reasonable. It allows the entire 
technology industry to move forward and start the innovations 
rolling again. Our economy is ready for a new idea. Please accept 
the settlement and close the books on the matter.
    Sincerely,
    Rep. J. Morgan Philpot
    Utah House of Representatives



MTC-00009950

From: Brock N. Cordeiro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. It's time for 
the states to stop persecuting Microsoft. The proposed settlement is 
in the public's interest. I support the Bush Administration and 
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
    The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of 
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are 
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the 
technology market and the entire national economy.
    Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this 
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful 
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. The proposed 
settlement encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product 
innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related computer and software 
manufacturers with confidence in marketing their own products. It 
also frees up Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust 
violations that currently harm the public.
    Sincerely,
    Brock N. Cordeiro
    15 Sagamore Drive
    Dartmouth, MA USA
    02748-1261
    508-979-8930--Phone
    508-996-4622--Fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00009952

From: Sanford Kenyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:54pm
Subject: Trials
    PLEASE STOP DAMAGING OUR ECONOMY WITH THE LAWSUITS AGAINST 
MICROSOFT.
    ALSO STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS
    SANFORD KENYON
    P.O. BOX 212
    WEST POINT, CA. 95255
    email [email protected]



MTC-00009953

From: David.M.Talmadge@mail. sprint.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support this proposed settlement.
    Thank you.
    David Talmadge
    6708 East 132nd St.
    Grandview, MO 64030
    [email protected]



MTC-00009954

From: Harland W Cashman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this suit and go forward with real needed 
litigation.
    Thank you
    H.W. Cashman Plainview, NY



MTC-00009955

From: Ed or Anna McNeill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the anti-trust suit. In today's environment, the customers 
have spoken by an overwhelming preference for purchasing Microsoft 
products. This is not because Microsoft products are the only ones 
available. It is because the customers prefer them.
    Harole E. McNeill
    201 Calle Del Juego
    San Clemente, CA 92672



MTC-00009956

From: Connie D. Husley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to advise that I support the Bush Administration and 
Microsoft in the settlement of this lawsuit.
    Let me add a few of my own thoughts and comments: A former 
partner of mine walked out on our business a year and a half ago and 
started her own business.
    She proceeded to call and send letters to our clients leading 
many of them to believe that she would be ``taking over'' their 
cases when no such agreement had been made. She continuously smears 
our reputations with clients as she has done to her previous 
employers in the past. We lost more than 1/2 of our client base to 
these unethical actions. She attempted (and is still doing so) to 
take all of them in any way she could. Fortunately, my reputation in 
the field is good enough and her slander is not with the other 1/2. 
This, along with many other actions she practiced and continues to 
practice, is a violation of anti-trust laws; not what Microsoft has 
done.
    I am tired of the government constantly attempting to divert the 
money and success that honest, hardworking individuals have obtained 
to 'provide to the less fortunate' individuals. I do not make much 
money; in fact, I am a single parent of two teenagers and make less 
than $50,000 a year. There have been times that I have made $15,000 
a year and I have never felt that the so called rich people owe me 
something. Because of my intent to provide for myself and my family, 
I have done whatever I could to make sure my success was a priority. 
I have admired the ambition of people such as Bill Gates who have 
built themselves an ``empire'' on their own intelligence and 
abilities. It is ironic to me that the ones that feel that the 
``poor'' people need to get more of the government's (American's) 
money than the ones that have actually paid the taxes into the 
government are Hollywood elite who make millions of

[[Page 25234]]

dollars a year and wouldn't give a penny up without plenty of media 
coverage to make sure they become noted for their alleged wonderful 
contributions. If the ``poor'' people would quit laying on the legs 
of honest, hardworking Americans, they may be able to actually make 
it on their own. President Bush's tax cut and the refunds was the 
best thing in the world and I think if the majority of it went to 
the ``richest of the rich'', then they were deserving of it since 
they were the main contributors. While I don't agree with salaries 
paid to CEO's, etc. that are non-owners of businesses, I cannot 
agree with penalizing them because they may have been diligent 
enough to get where they are.
    I could continue with my point of view but feel that this should 
get my point across in regard to the Microsoft case.
    Thank you for your consideration of my interest in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Connie D. Husley
    6911 Rosebank Dr.
    Metairie, LA 70003
    504-456-0905



MTC-00009957

From: mail.televar.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let this matter get settled and stop the hold up on new products 
Microsoft has been penalized far too long for being too good at what 
they are good at doing. This is supposed to be a free market 
country. If the other manufactures can't swim with the big fish too 
BAD.
    Richard H. Baumann



MTC-00009958

From: Francis Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have tried to follow the Microsoft case as much as possible 
and I am appalled with the DoJ for settling that easily. the law 
states that Microsoft broke the law, why does the punishment not fit 
the crime. As an individual on the street I start drawing my own 
conclusions. Did Microsoft pay off somebody etc? When IBM was found 
guilty of monopoly, they were dealt with accordingly and they could 
not profit from their business.
    When Southwestern Bell (I forget what it was called) was a 
monopoly, it was dealt with too Why is the DoJ afraid of dealing 
with Microsoft. Wrong is wrong.
    The proposed settlement is an insult to the ``poor under 
privileged schools.'' I could understand if Microsoft offered to 
make all these schools top of the art with new technology/hardware 
etc. But to offer outdated hardware/software!, all they are doing is 
using the schools as trash cans, because they have nowhere to put 
their junk. ``give it to them under privileged schools, they should 
be grateful'', and the worst part the DoJ accepted this. This is the 
United States for pete's sake. we are supposed to offer justice for 
all. Stop this atrocious settlement.
    I use Windows software on my pc and I appreciate the software, 
it is good and to most extent reliable and easy to use (if you know 
what you are doing). But I do not think that should get Microsoft 
special favors/treatment. DoJ act like a department of Justice and 
not like somebody's lacky.
    You read almost everyday that Microsoft is doing something bad 
here or there. This will continue until someone says ``The Buck 
Stops Here Microsoft, enough is enough''. A good example is a simple 
poll. They tried to rig a poll so that it looks like people want 
Microsoft, having people voting multiple times, how low can a 
company go to wipe out competition. Microsft cannot stand that 
people like something else other than Microsoft, they are now like 
dictator governments ``Its our way or noones''.
    DoJ clean up your act and do the right thing.
    THANK YOU
    FRANCIS



MTC-00009959

From: evilpaul13
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee,
    I have been following the Microsoft case reasonably closely. 
Based on what I've read from the testimony before the committee, I 
do not believe that the proposed punishment is fitting or effective. 
Because Microsoft has acted unfairly against competition, and price 
gouged consumers I believe the proposed remedy should reciprocate. 
Microsoft's competition should receive a indirect boon, and 
consumers should be repaid in some way.
    So, I propose that Microsoft pay 20 billion back to consumers 
split two ways. First, 8 billion should be put into Social Security. 
Many of the consumers Microsoft gouged will one day hope to collect 
SS, and every little bit helps. 12 billion should be put into 
education and schools. I propose that it be distributed by state 
according to population. In the individual states, 80% of the money 
should be given to the bottom 33% of schools and 20% to the 17% 
above the bottom third. With the condition, that not a penny of that 
money be spent on Microsoft products.
    This is how Microsoft will compensate its competitor's for its 
unfair business practices. By not using Microsoft products, schools 
will use its competitors. I attended public schools, and based on my 
experience with their systems, there is little to nothing that is 
done on their computers that a competing product does not do just as 
well as its more expenisve Microsoft version.
    Linux is a operating system that could easily replace Windows on 
school servers. And on desktops too. Contrary to what Microsoft 
might have you believe there is no shortage of quality software 
available FREE OF CHARGE. Two of the most popular and easy to use 
are Redhat Linux (their CEO testified if I recall correctly) and 
Mandrake Linux. Mandrake is as easy to install as Windows 98.
    Sun Microsystem's Star Office is a FREE full featured office 
software suite, with nearly identical menus and identical 
functionality to Microsoft Office. Netscape has a web browser that 
works as well as Internet Explorer. All Linux distributions have 
several to choose from including Mozilla (what Netscape is based 
on), the KDE project's Konqueror, and Galeon. All three are high 
performance and stable web browsers.
    There is a graphics manipulation and creation program called 
``The Gimp'' also available free of charge with most Linux 
distributions. Adobe Software also offers world class graphics 
software used by professionals everyday. This is also a place where 
schools could consider Apple iMacs which are known for their 
strength in graphics.
    It is very important to remember that while Microsoft's 
proponents will claim that while free Linux has a higher total cost 
of ownership, this is simply a falsehood. Schools will need a 
``computer guy'' no matter what type of systems they run. 
Additionally, ``Windows was built for the Internet'' while UNIX-like 
operating systems such as Linux ``Built the Internet.'' So, 
networking is very much a part of Linux systems and they are more 
easily (and without expensive addons) administered to remotely.
    A default installation of Linux is also far more secure than a 
default installation of Windows. Having used Windows in school, I 
can attest to the amount of downtime computers had caused by their 
frequent infection by Windows viruses and by malicious hacker-
wannabes. Under Linux, a person logged on cannot delete critical 
files which would crash the computer or change settings that would 
crash the computer. Windows viruses like Code Red, Sircam, Nimda, 
and every other of the dozens of Windows viruses that make the 
headlines every year simply will not work on Linux.
    I hope the committee will read and consider my proposal, as I 
whole heartedly believe it will be a more effective punishment for 
past transgressions, and send the message that future abuse will not 
be tolerated.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Dougherty IV
    Resident of Media, Pennsylvania
    Computer Science Student



MTC-00009960

From: kherzog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Message Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please consider the fact that Microsoft has become successful 
because it has developed and marketed the software most users of 
computers want to and are willing to buy. Those who are attacking 
Microsoft can only be described as losers. They can't compete in the 
game so they want to change the rules.
    Please use your authority stop the penalization of success and 
restore the competitive software market.
    That is the American way to do business.
    Keith Herzog
    [email protected]

[[Page 25235]]



MTC-00009961

From: Phil Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Why does the Government punish success? Look at Ma Bell and see 
the chaos the government produced,higher rates for all.(not to 
mention the competitive resistant Post office)



MTC-00009962

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft Department of Justice Dear Sir: We 
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to 
settle this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. & Mrs. Donald Johnson
    2154 East Dallas Drive Terre Haute, Indiana 47802-5133



MTC-00009963

From: BJ Trahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please settle this now. This is hurting the ultimate people it 
was suppose to help. It is hurting the economy and wasting a lot of 
time and money.
    Mr. B. J. Trahan
    324 Orgeron Drive
    Lafayette, La. 70506-6846
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00009964

From: Susan Whitaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAW SUITE OVERALL
    I have no idea what Clinton's motivation was in initiating a law 
suit against Microsoft and really do not care. But, you judges, 
government lawyers, and other bureaucrats involved should be ashamed 
of yourselves! Gates was not born with a silver spoon and 
privileged, he had an idea and kept after it until today we see 
Microsoft. It is too bad that others either cannot or will not spend 
the time to do what Gates did, some ``real'' competition would be 
okay too. But, Microsoft is not a monopoly. There are hundreds of 
domestic and foreign companies competing but none who apparently 
want to take the time, and borrow or spend the money to do what 
Microsoft has done.
    Shame on the lot of you!! Gates actually did what people, 
Americans are told, who have the ingenuity and drive can do in this 
Country. But apparently there is a P.S. at the bottom of the 
American dream--and that is, if you achieve it and are successful 
without the Government, you will be punished by that Government.
    Shame on the lot of you!!!
    This NEVER should have happened and there should be NO judgment. 
The government sues a private individual, with taxpayers money using 
a judge and court full of government people, and guess what--the 
government won. Isn't that a surprise.
    This entire matter is disgusting and so are those involved, 
beginning with the most immoral and treacherous president this 
Country has ever had. I suppose this will be deleted and never see 
the light of day but unlike the antitrust suit against Southwestern 
Bell a number of years ago when there simply were no competitors at 
all, this law suit was not about antitrust, this was about something 
else, something far more scary--Federal Government power.
    Thank you for your time.
    Susan Whitaker
    Kansas City MO



MTC-00009965

From: Wendy Bolding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wendy Bolding
    258 Freeport Road
    North East, PA 16428
    January 9, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    It has come to my attention that there may be further delays in 
the recent settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department. 
I really don't think this is necessary. Considering the fact that 
Microsoft has gone above and beyond the call of duty to help our IT 
sector move forward, it is ridiculous to further delay the process.
    It is beyond me as to why some parties feel they need to delay 
this matter any further. Not only has Microsoft has agreed to 
reconfigure marketing and licensing agreements, but has agreed to 
design future versions of Windows to promote installation of non-
Microsoft software. Beyond this, they have agreed to be reviewed by 
a committee that will make sure that they follow procedure. All of 
this was done in the interest of our entire technology industry. 
Microsoft, as well as most other IT companies, wants to move forward 
and get back to business.
    The settlement is very fair and should be finalized as soon as 
possible. Microsoft's opponents should not be allowed to derail it; 
it is my sincere hope that you will not do anything to hang it up.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy Bolding
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00009966

From: Frank Haman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Stop penalizing US businesses for doing their job.Stop the 
prosecution of MICROSOFT and get on with more important things that 
the government should care about, like the economy !!
    Sincerely,
    Frank Haman, a concerned citizen.



MTC-00009967

From: Chuck Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to let the free market do what it does best. Produce 
men like Bill Gates. Stop tyranny now, reward the businessmen who 
can help our economy. Stop the lawyers from taking what isn't 
theirs. Tort reform is needed.
    Gen Hall
    Orinda, CA



MTC-00009968

From: Don Babo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:32pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
    I urge you, the DOJ to settle and be done the this Microsoft 
letigation case. It has been going on for fours years now and two 
presidents. I think the government and the DOJ has more inportant 
things to do. With the way things are in the world today I think 
your resources could be put to better use for the american peapole. 
Do not let a minorioty stand in the way of what the majoity wants. 
Put the case to rest!



MTC-00009969

From: Bazil Ghani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the market forces decide the fate of Microsoft and 
the competitors. I assure you, us consumers don't purchase software 
because Microsoft places it in front of our face. We make educated 
decisions. If Sun and the rest of the industry want to use the 
government to sell their software, it is indeed a sad situation for 
them. I don't think we as consumers are harmed with Microsoft. The 
best case one can make is that Microsoft is guilty of annoying some 
consumers. But their competitors are often far more annoying. 
(example: Real Networks, Netscape, AOL, and Sun's Office)
    I hope you'll decide to settle and let the us, the consumers 
decide whether we'll let Microsoft tell us what software to use.
    Regards,
    Bazil Ghani
    Vice President of Business Development
    Italia Bella Inc.
    8647 Hayden Place.
    Culver City, CA 90232
    310 204 0200



MTC-00009971

From: Becky Bardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I would like to let the Federal District Court know that I 
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to 
settle this lawsuit. I believe that the proposed settlement is in 
the public's interest. Please do not continue this litigation any 
longer.
    Sincerely,
    Rebekah Bardon
    3926 S. 2500 E.
    Vernal, UT 84078



MTC-00009972

From: Joshua Barney
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25236]]

Date: 1/10/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft needs competition!
    I felt compelled to write in because of the current state and 
possible future of the internet and computing in general.
    If Microsoft continues to have its way, no data on the internet 
will be safe, and our economy will likewise suffer. Microsoft's 
policy of ``If it's broke, why fix it?'' is startling to say the 
least, but understandable when they are in such a position of power. 
They don't have to worry so much about people fleeing from their 
services. For those that would wish to flee, there are licensing 
restrictions or bosses that are entirely focused on using nothing 
but Microsoft products to help keep them in the fold.
    Microsoft thinks they are helping companies by making the 
computing world a Microsoft one. They are wrong. Truth is they're 
hurting companies by taking such a lax stance on security and 
quality. When there's no competition around there is no reason to 
improve.
    They aren't quite king of the server arena yet, but even now 
they act like they own that market. They do not use the quality of 
technology to coerce companies into using their products, but very 
carefully orchestrated marketing and trickery. They mislead 
consumers into thinking that Windows is the fastest, most reliable 
and most secure OS. They try to make consumers think that 
``everybody else is doing it'', the most recent evidence being a 
rigged ZDNet poll asking whether consumers would use Microsoft's 
.NET or Java-based web services.
    While I do acknowledge that Microsoft has made some marginal 
strides in useablility and stability in their operating systems, 
their security is still bar-none the worst in the industry.
    They don't care about other companies. They only care about 
themselves. Now in today's cutthroat business world that doesn't 
mean much, and I wouldn't expect anything less from a capitalistic 
society, but you would think that a company as ubiquitous as 
Microsoft would at least take pride in its work, and at least 
consider other's problems of stability and security into account. If 
those servers aren't running, from any reason from instability to 
security breaches, companies are losing a very large amount of 
money. I'm no economy expert but I can only assume that does hurt 
the economy visibly. The current state of our economy isn't too 
great either, so do we really need any additional danger to it by 
poorly-engineered software?
    Microsoft /needs/ competition in order to get better. Not only 
to help companies and to help Microsoft, but to help the end user as 
well. So far I have been focusing on the server market, but the home 
user market is also affected by these decisions. Microsoft leaves 
open very serious security holes in even its software meant for home 
users (oddly enough, they call some of these holes ``features''). 
When using a Microsoft OS at home, you can never be completely sure 
that your data is completely safe.
    So there needs to be competition in the home desktop user 
market, as well. A variety of operating systems can easly take over 
what average Joe User wants to do at home, but Microsoft, intent on 
securing its perch, has made certain that support for the latest 
hardware and software is a Windows-only deal. This is the ONLY 
reason I see that operating systems like BeOS and Linux aren't more 
prevalent in the user's home.
    If support was there from hardware and software vendors, even an 
operating system as ``difficult'' to use as Linux would be a piece 
of cake to use, and in fact to a large degree it already is easy to 
use thanks to the huge strides and hard work of millions of 
collaborating programmers across the globe, and companies that have 
decided to be sympathetic to those that want something other than 
Windows. Hell, I'm just an animator. I have no interest in my 
computer beyond getting the best hardware and the best software, and 
in getting the job done. Linux does this for me nearly flawlessly. I 
can do almost everything a home Windows user can do, save being able 
to play a few games and use some hardware. I've based my entire 
studio under Linux, using freely available software to craft artwork 
and animation.
    Despite this I still have to be careful about what hardware I 
get because Linux support is still a bit spotty. I shouldn't have to 
worry about that as a home user, though. Companies, likewise, 
shoudln't have to worry about having Microsoft breathing down their 
necks when they want to support an alternative platform.
    I think I've said enough for now, and I hope my words, along 
with the words of everyone else, are heard. Swifter and stricter 
action must be taken against Microsoft to ensure that tomorrow's 
world will be a good one for everybody. Even Microsoft. 
    Joshua Barney
    Founder and Lead Animator, Arctic Winds Animation
    ``You can't have bread and loaf.''



MTC-00009973

From: Randy (038) Shirlee Wadlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Please forward my comments to the Federal Judge in the Microsoft 
antitrust matter. I am IN FAVOR of the settlement agreement that has 
been reached among Microsoft, the D.O.J., and the 18 states on the 
suit.
    (1) I, for one, am just the ordinary consumer who is, as I see 
it, going to pay double for this litigation. My belief is that it is 
our tax money funding the litigation, and afterwords my money that 
pays for the additional software costs as brought about by any 
settlement reached. (i.e. tobacco though I'm a non-smoker) 
Therefore, any further litigation would just be a detriment to me, 
and millions like me, as the so called ``benefits'' are negligible 
from my perspective.
    (2) I am not a computer ``guru'' and I put the Microsoft program 
packaging in the same category as buying a car. I don't want to 
purchase a basic car and then have to go somewhere else to purchase 
all the options I want. Not only would that be too time consuming, 
but it would also be cost prohibitive.
    Thank you for the oportunity to express my views in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Randy L. Wadlow
    5318 Glenwood Ln.
    Lakeside, Arizona 85929-5135
    928-532-0470



MTC-00009974

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I support the speedy settlement of this case. Our tax money can 
be spent more wisely than continuing this lawsuit.



MTC-00009975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Hesse:
    We are concerned about the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
We feel that they will eventually become such a monopoly that we 
will have NO choices when we buy software.
    Please stop this company from limiting our choices by taking a 
strong position against them.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald & Judith Arnold
    418 Aiken Road
    Shelbyville, KY 40065



MTC-00009976

From: Mark Virkler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft
    Please bring to an end the governments attack against Microsoft.
    Blessings,
    Mark Virkler
    President of Christian Leadership University
    1-800-466-6961 or [email protected] www.cluonline.com



MTC-00009977

From: Ronald Tognetti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    Dear Sir,
    I'm writing you a quick note to support you and the Bush 
Administration as it seeks to end the litigation against Microsoft. 
Pursuing this action any further will further justify a bad 
precedent--the notion that the Federal government can enclose itself 
in the pursuit of 'Consumer Protection' when in fact it yields the 
opposite effect--creating uncertainty for businesses which produce 
goods in a competitive environment, which itself yields stagnation, 
fewer competitors and less innovation. Microsoft appears to have 
acknowledged wrong doing, and if the penalties outlined in the 
settlement are enforced to the letter, that will be a fair outcome.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment directly to you, and 
wish you well in the pursuit of truer justice for consumers.

[[Page 25237]]

    Sincerely,
    R. Tognetti
    Littelton, CO



MTC-00009978

From: Moore, Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a technology professional I use all types of computer 
software daily. I support the tempting to make gain Bush 
Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. 
I feel that further prosecution is based solely on competitors or 
politicians attempting to gain points or a tax payer funded 
advantage.
    I hope that this settlement goes further in stopping States from 
wasting taxpayer money on frivolous suits.
    Kevin Moore



MTC-00009979

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:15pm
Subject: Microsaoft Settlement
    PLEASE; Let's settle this matter now and get on with other 
important matters! Thanking you in advance,
    Allie Simpson



MTC-00009980

From: Mike Donovan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Ashcroft, It is time to move toward as much financial 
stability as possible. End the Microsoft litigation. Perhaps 
Microsoft took advantage of their proprietary system by providing 
the users with more value for their money. So, what else is new. If 
IBM hadn't foolishly allowed Microsoft to keep the rights to DOS it 
would be IBM who would be under the gun. If Apple had grown to #1 
with their proprietary system, they would be under fire. It has 
already cost Microsoft, stockholders, related industries and the 
American people more that is deserved.
    Mike Donovan,
    11038 N. River Lane,
    Cornell, MI. 49818



MTC-00009981

From: John Zehnder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear AG John Ashcroft,
    This fiasco of a suit against Microsoft initiated by the Clinton 
Justice Department has had a very detrimental effect on the high 
tech portion of our economy. ! urge you to cease and desist any and 
all actions against Microsoft and use the taxpayers' money to pursue 
the actual criminals in our country.
    Sincerely,
    John Zehnder
    --John Zehnder
    [email protected]



MTC-00009982

From: EVAN LEE
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/10/02  3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ Anti-Trust Division:
    I am deeply troubled by the recent DOJ decision to settle the 
anti-trust case against Microsoft. Guilty or not, Microsoft is the 
most dominating presence in the operating system and the software 
market today. For years they have bought out or pushed out 
competition not by superioriety of the software, but by money and 
lawyers. Microsoft does not promote fair competetion, their goal 
seem to be eliminate all competetion. Every new technology or 
company comes up with new and cheaper ways that benefits customers 
have been targed by Microsoft as enemies. I do not believe behaviors 
such as this will be curbed by this settlement, if anything else 
this gives Microsoft more confidence to destroy their competitors, 
because what's the worst that will happen? a slap on the hand to 
microsoft.
    what will this settlment accomplish? by making microsoft 
providing computers to poor schools in the country? How will this 
punish microsoft? All they have to do is buy in mass quantity 
refurbished computers which manufactures are gladly to get rid of. 
The software of course will be windows. This will not punish 
microsoft, instead it helps them breaking in to previously Mac 
dominated education market share. This settlement is not punishing 
Microsoft, it is helping them gaining publicity and market share.
    It is amazing to me that this cased started hard and heavy in 
the late 90s when microsoft had no presence in washington. but it 
ended with less of a whimper after microsoft dumped millions if not 
billions of dollars in to washington's political arena. I believe 
this is the wrong decision by the DOJ to settle with Microsoft, and 
their monopoly will only get worse. . . I fear the day that 
Microsoft conquers all.
    Evan Lee
    Disturbed Computer User



MTC-00009983

From: Alfred M Selgas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Affect on Americans with Disability 
Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 601 D 
Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Madam,
    Richard Blumenthal replied today to correspondence which I 
recently sent to him:
    ``Dear Mr. Selgas:
    Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning 
the Microsoft antitrust case.''
    ``You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal 
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments 
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002.
    Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
    Thank you again for contacting me.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Blumenthal
    Attorney General''
    Thus, I am providing you with opinions that may help you obtain 
an equitable settlement for all Americans, especially those who are 
not always included.
    My email to Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, follows: 
Subject: Accessibility and Unbundled Version of Windows
Date: Fri,  07 Dec 2001 18:38:03 -0500
From: Alfred M Selgas [email protected]>
To: [email protected] CC: [email protected], 
[email protected]
    Dear Sir:
    I have just read the below referenced article in today's 
NYTimes:
    ``States Ask Judge for Unbundled Version of Windows
    By REUTERS Copyright 2001 Reuters Ltd December 7, 2001''
    In your efforts to secure an open marketplace, please consider 
the circumstances of Americans with Disabilities in particular
    Accessibility has varied definitions:
    1: providing access
    2 a: capable of being reached ; also : being within reach b : 
easy to speak or deal with
    3: capable of being influenced : OPEN
    4: capable of being used or seen : AVAILABLE
    5: capable of being understood or appreciated
    All of these definitions are pertinent to the able bodied and 
even more so to those of us who need all of the capabilities of 
personal computing, internet, world wide web, e-mail and more to not 
just exist but to function effectively in the current and evolving 
world. These capabilities are not truly accessible if we are locked 
into one company's version of accessibility.
    I see Microsoft embracing ``accessibility'' only if one uses 
their version. The concept of Open Systems is not that of one 
company's version of the appropriate pieces of computer resources 
and their architecture. It is the concept of all widely available 
commercial computer resources being able to be selected and used as 
required by the consumer in an architecture of his or her choosing. 
This is especially true to provide equitable treatment of those with 
disability.
    I applaud your efforts; and I appreciate your attention.
    Yours truly,
    Alfred M. Selgas
    4606 Herend Place
    Fairfax, VA 22032-1714
    703-425-1519
    [email protected] 
    Please satisfy these concerns in any federal settlement with 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for your efforts and attention.
    Yours truly,
    Alfred M. Selgas
    4606 Herend Place
    Fairfax, VA 22032-1714
    703-425-1519
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009984

From: RLB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:28pm
Subject: the trial
    It would be in the public interest to keep the proceedings open 
to the public, including the pre-hearing questioning of witnesses.

[[Page 25238]]

    Richard L. Berger
    1223 Amherst Ave.,
    Los Angeles 90025



MTC-00009985

From: Spike Forbes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement proposal
    Dear Sirs: The proposed remedies in the settlement of your 
antitrust suit against Microsoft are an absolute and complete 
travesty. You are totally denying justice to the millions upon 
millions of citizens and computer users you supposedly represent. 
Microsoft has continually, repeatedly and flagrantly used improper 
and illegal techniques not only to maintain its monopoly status but 
far more seriously, to deny computer users access to far better 
technologies. It has created an environment where no competitor has 
had even a remote chance of successfully competing in the 
marketplace, independent of both quality issues and pricing issues. 
Your settlement would effectively allow Microsoft to continue its 
abhorrent practices without material modification.
    One can go back to significant antitrust cases in the past, with 
IBM and AT & T recently coming immediately to mind. Before them, 
most monopolistic practices were of the price-fixing variety. But no 
company in the U.S. of the last sixty years has ever operated to 
such material detriment of the public interest as Microsoft. Sadly, 
most consumers are not even aware of what they have lost out on 
because few have seriously investigated (or, thanks to Microsoft, 
even been able to investigate) alternatives.
    IBM was predatory in its pricing and packaging, and maintained 
its monopoly for years because of the service and comfort it 
offered. With all its flaws, it remains to this day a research-
oriented company which has brought to the market incredible 
innovation. The marketplace eventually removed it from monopoly 
status, in about the same time frame as the antitrust case, if 
continued, would have done. While IBM's practices were contemptible 
and slowed the introduction of such things as personal computers for 
close to a decade, it never operated to force an environment where 
competitors simply could not survive (as Microsoft has overtly and 
illegally done).
    At & T was never predatory in either its pricing or its 
packaging, probably because it always operated as a monopoly with 
government blessing, for the most part in quite a ``benevolent'' 
manner. The break-up probably served to actually hurt most customers 
for quite a long time since competition was not created in the one 
market that matters most to most consumers, local telephone service. 
Certain of the ``Baby Bells'' (Qwest is the one I am most familiar 
with) have been quite successful in maintaining their monopoly 
status, to the on-going detriment of consumers. Eventually, after 
many years of absolute turmoil in the long-distance market, 
consumers have clearly realized the benefits of a competitive 
market. The greatest loss to consumers has probably been from the 
effective demise of what was by far the highest quality research 
branch in the world, Bell Labs.
    Microsoft has done no research of its own; it has created no 
quality products; it is not an innovator under any definition of the 
word; and it has implemented standards which have kept computers 
error-prone and horrendous to use for at least a dozen years longer 
than would have happened absent its monopoly. And it has done all of 
this, not by technology or by packaging or by pricing but by the 
totally abusive power of controlling the marketplace through illegal 
agreements, intimidation and outright fraud. Yes, it has also taken 
advantage of its established monopoly to apply predatory pricing and 
packaging, but that is not the damage it has done to the industry 
and to the consumer.
    It is true that eventually the marketplace will remove Microsoft 
from its perch, but the DOJ would do consumers a huge favor, and 
would speed up the process by perhaps ten years, if it would adopt 
effective measures making Microsoft cease and desist. Placing 
billions of dollars in penalties on the company for a failure to 
amend its ways, not to mention breaking it into at least three 
pieces, is the only conceivable way to give any justice for the 
billions of dollars in both profit and in lost opportunities that it 
has bilked from consumers over the years. It is far too late to 
salvage the lost years, but positive change can still happen at a 
far greater rate than it otherwise will.
    I have been one of the few who has insisted on using some of the 
alternative products which have existed over the last twenty years, 
just as, back in the 1970's I was one who insisted on using some of 
the alternatives to IBM products. I have also continually used 
Microsoft products, just as I also continually used IBM products at 
that time. So I feel very qualified to speak to the quality and the 
usability of a wide variety of alternatives. Microsoft has done 
computer users absolutely no favors, ever since the very early days 
of its operating system control. It has held the entire computer 
industry hostage for far too long.
    It is not just the browser, but rather a whole range of 
practices; I could have gone through software product after product 
to show specifically how Microsoft implemented changes both to make 
that product no longer work (if it was clearly a better product) and 
to make it impossible for the developers of the product to keep up. 
In a nutshell, there are two primary practices (both on-going as far 
as I can tell): as the designer of the operating system, it provided 
the rules to others, while its own developers have been continually 
allowed to use capabilities known only to itself. And second, if its 
own products violated its own rules (which they frequently did and 
still do), it either changed the rules for the future or, more 
likely, it created new de facto standards outside the rules which 
other developers would have to modify their own products to meet. 
The headaches created by these two practices have meant two things: 
if a developer, sell your product to Microsoft if it is any good; 
you won't be able to issue new releases fast enough to keep up, and 
they'll actually target you if you really have a quality product 
that competes with one of their own. If a consumer, buy Microsoft 
because they're the only ones who can keep their products working on 
their operating systems (in other words, even though another's 
product followed all the rules, if it worked anything less than 
perfectly, Microsoft uniformly said that the fault lay in the 
product; in fact, the fault most often lay in either the operating 
system itself or in the public version of what Microsoft said the 
operating system rules were).
    Please do us all a favor, in a case you have already won, by 
coming up with truly rational and effective remedies, not the 
absurdities you are currently proposing.
    Waldo E. Forbes
    37 Beckton Drive
    Sheridan, WY 82801
    307-674-6095
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00009986

From: David Carson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Firstly, I do not believe that Microsoft would have ever lost if 
the trial had been conducted by a truly impartial judge or by a 
jury. However, given what the current state of the case is, I 
believe that the proposed settlement by Microsoft and the DOJ is 
acceptable. Of course, I think that the states that have decided to 
go out on their own case is absolute folly and they should be 
strongly encouraged by the DOJ to drop their suits and let Microsoft 
get on with competing in the markets in which they choose to 
participate.
    I know that Clinton's pursuit of Microsoft has caused me great 
personal losses in my Microsoft and related investments for which I 
will never forgive him. This stalling economy needs closure to this 
ridiculous case and let the high-tech sector get on with the 
business of making products that satisfy consumer and business 
needs. It's time for everyone to move on from the nightmare of the 
Clinton Administration which includes the pathetic pursuit of one of 
America's truly great enterprises (Microsoft).
    Thanks very much for taking the time to consider input from 
public.
    David Carson (former Microsoft employee and current shareholder)
    16318 NE 50th Way
    Redmond, Washington
    425-869-2279



MTC-00009987

From: Jean Pickett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I have followed this suit over the years and am thoroughly 
disappointed that the DOJ could take its precious time and the 
taxpayers' money to continue this farse. We live in a land of 
freedom, freedom to create and to innovate. Of course, some who 
haven't taken the time or made the effort could become jealous of a 
terrific product. How can you `limit' a product because a competitor 
is jealous of it? It seems unconstitutional at best! The consumer 
will suffer, not Microsoft or its jealous competitors. Where do you 
think the money comes from to pay the

[[Page 25239]]

claim? From the consumers! Who do you think suffers from the less 
than optimum software? The consumers! It's amazing to me that a 
company can be held accountable because they are presenting a 
product to the public. Nobody forces the consumer to make the 
purchase! So why make the rest of us suffer because a few want to 
disrupt and destroy? And, in the name of justice? Why don't you 
people spend your time with the electric monopolies, or the oil 
monopolies, or the American Medical Association monopolies. These 
people legally force their products on the innocent! And, when have 
they been taken into question for it? Leave Microsoft alone so the 
people who choose to purchase its products can have the best 
combination possible without all of the added inconveniences you 
people claim to provide as `benefits'.



MTC-00009988

From: DON BLASINGAME
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop this farce of a lawsuit that ostensibly was 
``in the best interest of the public'', when I fact it was driven by 
the best interest of Microsoft competitors. Stop the harassment, let 
Bill Gates get on with producing the worlds best computer operating 
system. He produced a better mouse trap, stop standing in the way of 
the pathway to his door.
    Don Blasingame
    Tyler, Texas
    [email protected]



MTC-00009989

From: KT/MT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:39pm
Subject: To all at the Justice Department
    To all at the Justice Department
    Leave Microsoft alone--the company has done so much for the 
world with their computer programs, creating jobs and putting people 
to work and keeping them employed, it is just a shame what the 
Clinton era has done with it's abuse of the law, the things this 
past administration has done is appalling --and the two biggest 
offenders of the law are still out running loose and now charging 
the American people for the rent of their house that houses the 
secret service, that is guarding them, and isn't it ironic it just 
happens to be the mortgage payment for their Million dollar home 
they live in--both of the Clintons should be ashamed of there past 
and some day they will finally get what they deserve, some jail 
time.
    Thank you for your time,
    Keith Tuma
    Brainerd Mn. 56401



MTC-00009990

From: dawn grey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:45pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I find it hypocritical to allow one world banking takeovers by 
the bank, electric, phone and water and then give microsoft trouble 
for helping the people out. Microsoft should never have been taken 
to court in the first place so I do not think they should suffer in 
any way. Stop the other distructive take overs of individuals and 
business by government mandates etc. Leave Microsoft alone!!!!!
    Diana Rey
    in care of
    Dawn Grey' s email address of [email protected]



MTC-00009991

From: Alexandre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I don't know how helpful this E-mail will be but I wanted to be 
sure that you knew an open source company has proposed to offer free 
software (much like windows and office, but from another company) 
for the hardware (the computers) Microsoft would provide to the 
poorer schools of the country. That means that Microsoft will really 
help, and won't extend its monopoly by supplying its own software to 
the schools it wants to help. Also, if another company takes care of 
the software, maybe Microsoft can offer more Hardware. The company 
is Red Hat. You can get their press release here and maybe write to 
them for more info.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744--1.html
    I feel its wrong for a company that was found guilty of abusing 
of its monopoly to extend its monopoly by providing old, free 
computers and its own software to kids who are eager to learn. They 
unhonestly steal marketplaces for other companies, namely Apple, 
their biggest competitor in the education market, who is leader in 
that market, and eventually trying to be paid by saying that in 5 
years their contract will be over and the schools will have to pay 
for upgrades.
    Open source software is completely free, and just as useful and 
easy to use. It is as easy for children to learn a computer system 
not used as wide as windows because they haven't yet had contact 
with windows, and it is better for them to get a wide grasp at what 
computers are, and not just the Microsoft point of view.
    If Red Hat doesn't suit the education market, you should 
consider other alternatives, like Linux, Apple, and other 
competitors. Microsoft should just provide money and hardware, not 
their software. --
    I was advised by Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General to send 
you this E-mail I had sent to him earlier.
    Thank you.
    Alexandre Ackermans
    [email protected]



MTC-00009992

From: David Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:48pm
Subject: Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I want to first thank you most sincerely for bringing Christian 
dignity and honor to your held post for you have thus brought 
blessing to this nation. I also wish to support your efforts to end 
the Microsoft attack. Clinton's elitist government set out hell bent 
to destroy American private, free enterprise and did so in one 
account by attacking Microsoft. His attack resulted in the collapse 
of the stock market causing me to loose all my retirement and 
investment savings, complete 100% loss. I know many others who lost 
severely as well. It is high time to stop elitist government, anti-
American government policies and actions and to return America to 
free enterprise, return soverienty to states and Constitutional 
rights to United States citizens. End the Microsoft fiasco now!
    Respectfully,
    Dr. David C. Fisher, OD, MPH
    12921 Dale Street, #82
    Garden Grove, CA. 92841



MTC-00009993

From: Virginia Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of moving ahead with the proposed settlement as 
outlined by the Bush Administration. Enough is enough!
    Virginia R. Jensen
    1111 W. Placita Alvina
    Green Valley, AZ. 85614



MTC-00009994

From: Dr. David A. Zatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has been found to have broken the law. If I broke that 
many laws, I'd be penalized for it, not politely requested to stop 
breaking laws.
    What amazes me is how flagrantly Microsoft is still abusing 
their monopoly status. The latest appears to be a change to their 
file system to prevent open source software from interfacing with 
Microsoft networks. No surprise if all the punishment is an advisory 
board.
    I strongly recommend that you attempt to provide some 
restitution to the companies damaged by Microsoft's illegal 
activities, and try to even out the playing field. I like the idea 
of making Windows APIs open. . .of requiring versions of Office--
FULL versions, including Access and VisualBasic--for other leading 
platforms, and of having a REAL oversight panel with actual power.
    We've already learned that agreements with Microsoft are 
meaningless. Once fooled, your fault; twice fooled, my fault. We've 
already been fooled once.



MTC-00009995

From: H. Jack (038) Carin Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:50pm
Subject: FREEDOM
    DEAR SIRS,
    AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, I IMPLORE YOU TO CEASE AND 
DESIST, RE: THE ATTACK ON MICROSOFT. PUNISHING SUCCESS IS THE ROAD 
SIGN DIRECTING OUR COUNTRY TO RUIN. THE TRANSPARENT MOTIVE OF THIS 
LEGAL ATTACK ON MICROSOFT BY GREEDY POLITICIANS AND SLEAZY 
COMPETITORS MUST BE DEFEATED, AND FOREVER PUT TO REST IF OUR FREE 
SOCIETY IS TO SURVIVE.
    IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT THE PRESENT RECESSION COMMENCED WITH

[[Page 25240]]

THE EMERGENCE OF THIS ASSAULT ON MICROSOFT. I URGE YOU TO 
IMMEDIATELY TAKE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO REMEDY THIS WRONG 
AGAINST THIS VERY IMPORTANT COMPANY.
    SINCERELY,
    H. JACK MORGAN



MTC-00009996

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:59pm
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: Jont Allen
    It is critical, in my view, that MS be dealt with severely. They 
have broken the law. This is not the right time to ``get soft'' on 
them with a lame excuse that it is good for the US economy. What 
would be good for the economy is to open up the software industry to 
competition. Having a single source for all PC software is like 
having a virus. We need competition in the software industry. MS is 
a double monopoly. They own the desktop OS AND the applications. 
Breaking them up may create two single monopolies, but this 
improvement would lead to a much stronger software industry over the 
next few years. The US economy would be one of the big winners in 
such a breakup.
    The above is my personal view. I use Linux software. I have 
never had a computer virus. I would like others to see the 
advantages of Linux. If MS has its way, Linux will be squashed like 
a bug. If MS is broken in two, the applications half will start 
producing Office for Linux, in short order. If not, they wont. This 
would greatly increase competition in the computer industry. I am 
guessing that Judge Jackson saw this clearly, and that is why he 
decided they should be broken up. In my view, this is the only 
rational solution to a very serious problem.
It is hard to abandon the feeling that the unfamiliar is absurd and 
illogical.''
--G.A. Miller, p. 5 of his book `Language and communication'
    Jont B. Allen,
    973/360-8545 voice,
    775/796-9844 (fax),
    908/789-9575 (home fax)
    Technology Leader Speech Processing Software and Technology 
Research
    http://www.research.att.com/jba; http://auditorymodels.org/jba
    Room E161, AT&T Labs-Research, Shannon Laboratory
    180 Park Ave., Florham Park NJ, 07932-0971
    CC:Richard Blumenthal



MTC-00009997

From: matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    As a technician in a large data center outside Washington DC I 
have an opportunity to work with a variety of software other than 
Microsoft's. Most of the servers we house use some form of Linux or 
Apache or FreeBSD or Solaris. Granted, our internal network uses NT 
4.0 on the desktop and NT Server 4 on the netserv I do believe that 
choice was more a function of the Adminstrator's skillset other than 
lack of variety in the marketplace. Point is, I don't see where 
Microsoft has ANY monopoly on ANYTHING. Their product just works 
pretty good and so far no one has come up with anything better, 
competitors' marketing hype aside.
    While perhaps out of the mainstream I have 8 versions of 
Netscape and InternetExplorer on my home system--EACH--in addition 
to a selection of lesser known browsers also. No better way to test 
how your webpages load than on the browser in question. I know 
browsers. Aint one better than the other at the primary task of 
going and getting webpages and since they are all pretty much FREE, 
qualify as something less than a commodity. Like dirt.
    I am deeply disappointed in the amount of time and money spent 
on this suit and hope the judge sees fit to end it very, very soon.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Tracey
    908 Grant Street
    Herndon, VA 20170



MTC-00009998

From: Rick Wintheiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Trial
    I am an American citizen living in Europe. It is my opinion, and 
that of many others that Microsoft has been given a ``pass'' on the 
issue of Monopoly. I cannot comment on legal grounds but as a user, 
maker and creator of software I find their current status stifling 
in the market. When they ID an area they can simply buy their way in 
(see XBOX) or using FUD stop development. It was clearly documented 
in the trial, it is clearly documented in emails and letters, it is 
clearly documented in the way they behave. Please stand up to them 
and make sure that Microsoft is broken up or at least strictly 
controlled.
    Best Regards,
    Rick D. Wintheiser
    R. Prof. Mota Pinto, 247 ? 1 Esq
    4100-356 Porto Portugal



MTC-00009999

From: Mark Beecroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:00pm
Subject: Please break Microsoft into competitive parts
    Dear sir/madam,
    My personal view is that the only way to ensure an effective 
climate for competition is to break Microsoft into parts based on 
product groups. For years I, as many others, have had to endure poor 
quality software simply because no other company has had a real 
opportunity to convince the market of the benefits of its 
corresponding product(s). A prime example of Microsoft's poor 
software is the Windows operating system(s). Not only is this 
product more costly and far less stable than many of its 
competitors, it is full of security defects which make it an easy 
target for hackers. In addition, it is a poorly designed and less 
powerful than other operating systems. Every one knows there are 
better products (such as Red Hat's Linux) which deserve to be able 
to compete on equal terms. Lack of competition is holding back 
progress.
    Yours faithfully,
    Mark Beecroft



MTC-00010000

From: Paul Benson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:23pm
Subject: U.S. vs. MICROSOFT:
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I recently received an email concerning U.S. vs. MICROSOFT:, It 
was entitled FIVE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT 
BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND MICROSOFT-- AND WHAT YOU 
CAN DO ABOUT IT.
    As it urged me to email your office and join in the chorus of 
lament against Microsoft, I felt the need to voice an opinion that 
is contrary to theirs. I am not saying that I support all of 
Microsoft actions and don't think that safe guards should not be in 
place, I just question as to what would be appropriate action and 
what would simply ``whiny little children'' getting their way!!
    The biggest problem the industry faces from Microsoft is also 
the the greatest benefit that Microsoft has brought to the software 
industry. That is its success in marketing its DOS and now its 
Windows platforms. It has made it difficult for other operating 
system platforms to get established , yet compete. At the same 
success has brought stability to the software marketplace. A 
software applictaion development company does not have to worry 
about having to write for a multitude of platforms. It can simply 
put out a good product for Windows that fills a need, and be assured 
that he has a large marketplace. The only risk here is that 
Microsoft could develop a competing product, after it has seen the 
financial success of the pioneering company, and leverage its 
marketing skill, deep pockect, and built in user list to out compete 
the pioneer. Yet Microsoft's past experience has shown that what is 
usually done is that Microsoft will offer the original company an 
offer that they cannot refuse ( i.e., lots of money, a position 
within the company, and unlimited ability to develop new products).
    Over the past years it seems to me that those that scream the 
loudest are those who have made poor business decisions, lost market 
share, and would rather blame Microsoft than accept their own 
mistakes! Many of the claims within the email that was forwarded to 
me are conflicting and to cross purposes. The would be backers of 
this document want Microsoft to not compete with them and to include 
items that they deem to be useful. How would the industry be if 
every one could dictate to every one else what they could and could 
not do.
    I may not agree with many of Microsoft's business practices (its 
bundling agreements for instance) but find that documents such as

[[Page 25241]]

this are why nothing practical gets done. They whine so loudly about 
Microsoft being a successful business, that the real problems go on 
solved. It sort of like one sibling yelling about his/her sibling so 
loudly that they become the problem and the sibling gets ignored.
    Considering the inherent problems with Java, it is perhaps best 
if it is not included with Windows, after all Microsoft would be 
prohibited from fixing it and making it work with windows. Or 
perhaps Microsoft should be forced to include Visual Basic, Visual 
C++, Tcl, Python, Eiffel, Pike, Perl, Ruby, and the other languages 
which are ubiquitous and omnipresent within the development and 
internet community as part of the Windows distribution. Perhaps they 
should be forced to make ``asp'' and ``.net'' technologies available 
for Linux, Sun, and Mac platforms. A collegue wrote and had the 
following observations:
    My experience with Anti-Trust and Nintendo certainly influence 
my feelings about Microsoft's situation. I am sure that Sun or 
Oracle, in Microsoft's position would act in exactly the same 
manner. I don't want Microsoft to be replaced by Sun or Oracle as 
the reigning monopoly. I like Microsoft products and work with 
people who absolutely ``hate'' Microsoft.
    At our firm, we were always panicked that Microsoft would 
eliminate the need for our software by baking it's capabilities into 
the operating system. We were very cautious with Microsoft 
``evangelists'' and tried to keep low key.
    I personally would like to see Microsoft punished more severely 
than what seems to be happening but I do not want them destroyed.
    The formost concern from software developers is being squashed 
by the Microsoft the behemoth. The possibility of Microsoft 
replicating a proven proprietary software application or trade 
secret and including it as a ``feature'' of it's Windows operating 
system or as a Microsoft application. This practice goes on in most 
industries and is the formost reason for the demise of small, 
inovating manufactures. They develop a proprietary product, which 
may be a trade secret but is not patented. A larger more established 
company in the field duplicates the product, introduces it into it's 
established distribution system, and locks the smaller company out 
of the market by its sheer presence. Often distributors will not buy 
initially from the smaller firm because they are new and the 
distributor is not sure of its stability. after all they don't want 
to invest in the development of a market for a new product if they 
may not be able to get the prpduct in enough quantity to statisfy 
the demand. Yet when the more established company duplicates the 
product, they immediately pick it up from them. Denying the 
original, innovative company the market, growth profit, and assuring 
the failure of the smller company. Sort of a self fulling prophecy.
    However, as can be seen by the numerous suggestions as to how 
Microsoft should be punished. No one has a clear idea of how to 
solve this problem. It does not seem to lie within the ``evil'' 
nature of microsoft, but to be more a symptom of a ``systemic'' 
problem with the innovtive process and the established, entrenched, 
monied market place. It would appear that the Eighteenth Century 
concept of patent does not serve its original intention of 
protecting the developer of an idea very well. The original mission 
of a patent was to encourge the development of new ideas by 
protecting them for a period of time. Now the costs of acquiring and 
protecting a patent are so high that many small innovators are 
frozen out of the process. And in an area where change is so rapid, 
several months to a couple of years, the patent review time which 
may be several years negates any effective protection which may be 
afforded. By the time a patent is awarded it may already have been 
superceded.
    The real solution may be legislative in nature, leading to the 
adoption of an interim patent that prevents duplication of an 
existing product for a short period of time, (2-3 years max). That 
would allow the developers of the product sufficient time to 
establish the product and be granted a patent, and yet prevent 
vulture firms from stealing their ideas. With out this, innovation 
will be stiffled, and research will be left to institutions and 
large corporations.
    The PC and software industry owes its success history and growth 
to the fact that at its inception the giants of the computing 
industry had no faith in the establishment of a ``Personal 
Computer'' industry. Otherwise IBM, Rand, DEC and other Giants would 
have owned the industry and it would have been Microsoft crying 
about IBM's dominance that you would be reviewing (after all the 
first monopoly suit in the computer industry was against IBM).
    I would like to thank you for taking the time to read this email 
and would hope that you would find it informative and useful. This 
is a complicated issue. My sympathies go out to you
    Sincerely
    Paul A. Benson
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010001

From: Kevin Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:05pm
Subject: Settlement?
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing this letter today on a Macintosh computer, 
manufactured by Apple Computer Inc. I have used the Apple brand for 
many years now and have found it to be a superior product to the 
compatible PC's on the market today. Having said that, To settle 
with Microsoft Corporation would be an injustice. They have ran over 
competitors for many years now in an attempt to monopolize the tech 
industry. The company was allowed to ``borrow `` GUI technology from 
company such as Apple. The steam-roller attitude was formed in those 
days and now they are so rich and so powerful that they feel as if 
they can do as they please, rules, ethics, or no. These people 
should be punished and with the full extent of the law!
    Ask companies such as Apple, Netscape, or any other up and 
coming company that should cross the path of Mr. Gates Inc. Ask 
yourself a few hard questions:
    A. How did this company get to be so rich and powerful? Was it 
that they produced a superior product? Compared to whom?
    B. Why do they control over 95% of the desktop systems in the 
U.S.? Ford and GM both build automobiles but neither has ever 
enjoyed that type of market share. If GM or Ford couldn't do it how 
did Microsoft?
    C. Has Microsoft evolved into another AT&T, capable of 
domination through high prices and limits on choice?
    D.Would the market be served to allow increased competition in 
the technology sector?
    E. Isn't it somewhat dangerous to allow mega-corporations to 
dictate policy to the people?
    Do not settle with these people, they would not settle with you.
    Respectfully,
    Kevin Smith
    386 Store Road
    Easley, S.C. 29640
    864-859-8191
    Republican



MTC-00010002

From: Byron Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Attorney General John Ashcroft,
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft Suit. As a person who 
works in the computer industry, I would encourage this settlement.
    V/R Byron K. Major



MTC-00010003

From: Phoenix Silver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:09pm
Subject: Fwd: FW: Attn: attorney general's Microsoft case
    Hello there
    My name is Tushar Patel and I'm only 26 years old but I've been 
using computers for a very long time and have been exposed to 
Microsoft for years and years. I know you're busy so I'll make this 
as short as possible.
    Licensing Office will NOT help out consumers, this fight that 
you've been fight for so hard should not go to waste. Office is a 
great product but it won't help out there monopoly. There isn't much 
of a market for office products compared to what can be developed on 
a platform. As long as Microsoft has control of the platform doesn't 
matter what products you license of theirs.
    Window's should be the product that is licensed, just as linux 
is. This way other companies can integrate any products of there's 
into a base OS, and competition will really begin. Microsoft will of 
course be allowed royalties and have control over the kernel.
    Take a look at the Linux model there is a lot of versions out 
there controlled by one guy, ``Linus Torvals'' and each company that 
produces a version packages and bundles alot of their own software 
and services within their version. If windows was made to follow 
this model then companies such as Netscape, Corel would be able to 
create their own version of Windows and bundle everything from 
Browser's to application servers to office products if they wanted. 
This would

[[Page 25242]]

also allow for a more advancement in the windows technology.
    All these points are strengthening other companies chance of 
competition more so than that of a licensed Office would. PC makers 
will also get a choice of who to purchase their OS from and be able 
to create deals. This in mine and alot of other consumers is a 
solution that helps US OUT. The only remedy that you would have to 
do would be to license windows, nothing else would need to be done. 
If no other companies want to develop or create an integrated OS at 
least the source-code is available to create applications for the 
OS.
    If you would like a more detailed report or any further 
clarification please let me know. I will do anything that you 
request. On another up side this could also kick start the tech 
industry with alot of start-ups. I love Microsoft and I like some of 
there products but as consumers this is the best solution for us and 
other companies to compete.



MTC-00010005

From: Randy Keith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Enough already. Get off of Bill Gates' and Microsoft's case. 
Let's get back to supply and demand. Quit punishing success. Let the 
consumer decide. If a computer company gets too much out of hand 
Americans will quit buying. We don't need a Big Brother holding our 
hand as we navigate the Internet etc.
    I feel like you have punished me as much as Microsoft and Bill 
Gates. He has done more to advance the use of computers in the home 
than anyone else in the world. It's time to free up Department of 
Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm 
the public.
    Randy Keith
    1146 Millers Mill Road
    Stockbridge, Georgia 30281



MTC-00010006

From: Susan Findley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Suit Attorney General John Ashcroft--
    I wish to express my support of the settlement of the Microsoft 
suit. The settlement offer is fair for competitors, fair for the 
American taxpayer, fair for the industry and fair for Microsoft. I 
know you are very busy and I appreciate your attention to this 
matter.
    Spencer Stokes
    Stokes Strategies



MTC-00010007

From: Frank Frable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Stop this irrational harassment of Microsoft. Let the free 
marketplace reign untethered by government intervention or unfair 
marketplace tactics, monopoly etc. Those that pursue the present 
course of undermining Microsoft's innovations and aggressive 
marketing are not leveling the playing field but merely tilting it 
in their favor at the expense of the consumer. Let those that are 
the best rise to the top so that this country will maintain its 
vaunted position as the industrial power of the world. Let those 
that fall behind develop their niche' and their drive to be more 
competitive by hard work and innovation. The states that refuse to 
settle merely want a cut of the pie to cover their budgetary short 
fall. Profit is not a bad word. Neither is success, innovation or 
hard work.
    Bottom line, Microsoft has not distorted the system. The 
consumer has benefited while the naysayers are merely suffering from 
self righteous astigmatism.
    Frank L. Frable



MTC-00010008

From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Stop punishing company and personal success!!! It is time for 
liberals to get over the fact that ALL the money people make is not 
for THEM or their POLITICAL PROGRAMS! It belongs to those who earn 
it. GO GET THE CRIMINALS IN THE U.S. and leave working people alone!
    Jane Pehl
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00010009

From: auralia cimenski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settle this case now and let the attorney General get on to more 
important matters. Quit picking on a productive company.



MTC-00010010

From: James Keane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Below please find the text of a letter that I recently sent to 
the Att'y Gen of Connecticut. Please know that I am not the only 
tech. oriented professional who feels this way. Those of us who have 
watched the evolution of the computer for the last two decades have 
been alarmed & disgusted by the conduct of this corporation & the 
stifling effect it has had on innovation in the computer world.
    James Keane, YALE LAPAROSCOPY



MTC-00010010-0001

    ?? piece of software they produce, they have the nerve to talk 
about ``Innovation'' !In a hundred ways daily, despite lawsuits 
civil & crimminal, they sabotage rivals, deny acess or produce 
obstacles to su
    Thank You,
    James Keane Yale Laparoscopy
    James Keane, YALE LAPAROSCOPY J.



MTC-00010010-0002



MTC-00010011

From: Christopher Joseph Kurecka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a college student and starter of a small computer 
consulting business. I have in many ways more knowledge of computers 
than most adults, and in all my experience with Microsoft, they have 
only done what is needed to sell a product.
    Their technical support, though better than some other computer 
companies, is still simply horrid. They even charge for technical 
support on products that they sell at virtually 100% profit. I know 
that they put great amounts of research into some of their technical 
developments, but in many cases their alleged efforts don't result 
in gains for the consumer.
    Microsoft makes bloated, slow software, simply because faster 
computers are out and they need a circular system of slowing down 
the CPU to demand faster CPUs to keep the market going. The cost of 
Microsoft products is far too high--especially when one considers 
that Windows itself, along with Office and other applications, are 
quite unstable and error-prone. If Windows cost $30, then I might 
not care. But they have been steadily raising the price of Windows 
over the years, and I believe that if left unchecked they will 
continue to raise prices indefinitely.
    Microsoft's plan for subscription service for Windows also 
frightens me. Their strategy of charging by the month or year for 
Windows is outrageous--it will increase the cost of Windows even 
more, because you pay for it whether you want to upgrade to new 
features or not. It will also lessen the motivation on Microsoft's 
part to innovate, once they have a more reliable, consistent money 
flow. As things stand today, people could all switch to Linux, and 
Microsoft would go bankrupt (not that such a thing would likely 
happen, but it's possible). In the subscription service, Microsoft 
is ensured a greater sum of money in a more consistent fashion that 
could cause me--or anyone else--to pay money even if they don't want 
Windows anymore. A good example: I like my computer to be in a dual-
boot setup. I can use Linux for fun, and Windows when I need to use 
Office or something that I couldn't otherwise run in Linux. However, 
with this plan, I can keep updating Linux for free, and never 
upgrade Windows. With the subscription model, I would have to pay 
for Windows, even if it is only used as a secondary operating 
system.
    I think that Microsoft should be forced to produce Office and 
their other flagship products for other platforms, such as Linux and 
Unix. I also think that they should be forced to restrict their 
pricing system, and be forbidden to ever go to a subscription 
payment model. Making Windows open source or something to that 
effect would definitely be a siginificant boon to the tech industry, 
but it would also be a crushing blow to Microsoft that I think at 
present their actions do not warrant (though they may at some time 
in the future). Thank you very much for your time to read this 
message, and for pursuing this antitrust investigation. Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behavior is definitely hurting the industry, and 
they don't innovate nearly as much as they like to make people think 
they do.
    Christopher J. Kurecka

[[Page 25243]]



MTC-00010012

From: Bobby Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:30pm
Subject: Fair Justice for Microsoft
    Nothing in the agreement with the justice department and 
microsoft terminate the illegal monopoly and denies microsoft the 
fruits of its statutory violation as is required under the Tunney 
Act. Microsoft has done more damage to the computer industry more 
over the last 20 years than any company has hurt any market in the 
history of the world. Their greed knows know bounds and they will do 
anything to maintain the monopoly they got by illegal means. They 
lied to the Justice department before which was the reason for the 
antitrust case in the first place. Microsoft doesn't have enough 
billions of illegal gotten profits, they intend to convert all 
they're customers whether the customer likes it or not to a rental 
model of software which will only work if microsoft has an illegal 
monopoly. This will allow profits skyrocket and allow a reduction in 
research and improvement of their software. Microsoft idea of 
security is for their customers is to stop information about 
security holes in its software to be shared. I'm surprise that they 
haven't claim a copyright violation whenever someone finds a 
security problem, but given time I think they will claim this. 
Microsoft has never been about the customer. They have been about 
milking the consumer for all the money from they're now adjudged 
illegal monopoly for all they can and maintaining they're monopoly 
at all costs.
    Bobby E Hill Jr.



MTC-00010013

From: Robert L. Matthews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Attorney General Aschroft,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement should be adopted immediately 
and the litigation closed.
    I am a small business owner. Information systems and Microsoft 
software are essential business tools. The integration of the 
Microsoft operating system and the suite of applications is a major 
factor in the financial health of my business. I cannot afford the 
time, expense and business risk of integration of various products 
from an array of vendors to run my business. Therefore, in my view 
the cessation of the litigation is strongly in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Matthews, CEO
    Elm Hill Enterprises, Inc.
    Elm Hill Box 303
    Far Hills, NJ 07931



MTC-00010014

From: Thomas Wills
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  3:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thomas Wills
    6925 East Kingston Drive
    Tucson, AZ 85710-2214
    January 10, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I know you've been swamped with messages telling you to support 
the Microsoft settlement. I disagree!
    I have to spend thens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy 
software, generally by Microsoft that shouldn't have to be spent. 
The reasons are:
    1) There is no real competition and if there is, Microsoft buys 
them out.
    2) Because there is no competition, we are forced to buy things 
like Microsoft Office at obscene prices ($12000 just to buy 100 
Exchange licenses!).
    Being a monopoly, Microsoft can exploit its position in the 
marketplace, and it does.
    Don't settle for this slap on the wrist settlement. Give the 
consumer some real relief from the Microsoft monopoly!
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Wills
    Information Systems Coordinator
    Pima County Wastewater Management
    Treatment Division
    Tucson, AZ 85743



MTC-00010015

From: Vince Bowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I believe this grossly misdirected persecution/prosecution of 
Microsoft is a very large waste of taxpayers money. For each ounce 
of good there has been a pound of BAD. It was a bad idea when it was 
started and has only become worse each day since. It has caused much 
uncertainty in the market and is responsible the loss of many 
billions of stockholder value. Had MSFT's competitors been 
successful it would have caused us consumers many billions of 
dollars and fragmented the desktop operating systems market and cast 
the whole software industry into spending, greatly unnecessary 
billons of dollars. What an insult to the whole country.
    Vincent F. Bowler,
    Farmington Hills, MI
    [email protected]



MTC-00010016

From: Judy Hurd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judy Hurd
334 Primrose
Kyle, TX 78640
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Judy Hurd



MTC-00010017

From: Lannie Abernathy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lannie Abernathy
883 Hawthorne St.
Memphis, TN 38107-4510
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lannie Abernathy



MTC-00010018

From: Ulice Macias
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25244]]

Ulice Macias
10112 Brandywine Dr.
Huntsville, AL 35803-1628
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ulice J. Macias



MTC-00010019

From: Debra Habbel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debra Habbel
8426 E. LaJunta
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Debra Habbel



MTC-00010020

From: John Bixler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Bixler
12700 7thAve.
Victorville, CA 92392-9577
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John Bixler



MTC-00010021

From: Alex Vert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Vert
1104 Minneapolis St.
Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783-3124
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alex R. Vert



MTC-00010022

From: Theodore Howard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore Howard
25 Coles Ave
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore Howard

[[Page 25245]]



MTC-00010023

From: LJ Bishop
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LJ Bishop
703 Desnoyer Street
Kaukauna, WI 54130
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Bishop



MTC-00010024

From: Richard Crum
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Crum
15518 Cobre Valley
Houston, TX 77062
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Crum



MTC-00010025

From: Marcia Sparks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marcia Sparks
4593 Main St.
Hemlock, NY 14466
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Marcia Sparks



MTC-00010026

From: David W. Kralik
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David W. Kralik
1920 L. Street, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Kralik



MTC-00010027

From: Edmund Tanner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edmund Tanner
1209 Sims Bridge Rd.
Kittrell, NC 27544-9125
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.

[[Page 25246]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Edmund Tanner



MTC-00010028

From: Gloria Solomon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gloria Solomon
1910 NE 49th St.
Kansas City, MO 64118
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gloria Solomon



MTC-00010029

From: Jeffery Berg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffery Berg
400 Crisfield Drive
Abingdon, MD 21009
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Berg



MTC-00010030

From: Makinzi Mock
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Makinzi Mock
44 Buck Point Road
Bluffton, SC 29910
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Makinzi Mock



MTC-00010031

From: Greg Proch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Proch
16081 SW 156 Ave
Miami, Fl 33187
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Proch



MTC-00010032

From: Alphild Setzer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alphild Setzer
15565 St. Therese Blv.
Brookfield, WI 53005
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of

[[Page 25247]]

corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will 
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the 
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be 
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alphild Setzer



MTC-00010033

From: Wayne Capurro
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wayne Capurro
    10451 Gateway Dr.
    City, NV 89511
    January 9, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Capurro



MTC-00010034

From: Becky Elliott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Becky Elliott
Rt 3 hwy 946
Coldspring, tx 77331
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Becky Elliott



MTC-00010035

From: Kerry Pfeifer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kerry Pfeifer
500 VZ CR 4601
Ben Wheeler, TX 75754
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kerry Pfeifer



MTC-00010036

From: Lou Chavez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lou Chavez
15150 W. Ajo #2
Tucson, AZ 85735-2029
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lou R. Chavez



MTC-00010037

From: kim fiocco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Fiocco
7203 st johns way
university park, fl 34201
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.

[[Page 25248]]

    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    kim fiocco



MTC-00010038

From: Don Brigham, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Brigham, Jr.
1002 E. Gallatin Ave.
Belgrade, MT 59714
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Don and Ann Brigham



MTC-00010039

From: Mark Maughan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Maughan
4266 James Madison Parkway
King George, VA 22485
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Maughan



MTC-00010040

From: Ella Rinaldi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ella Rinaldi
1565 S. Meadow Lane
Bolivar, MO 15613
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ella Rinaldi



MTC-00010041

From: Raymond Ravert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Ravert
329 Hepburn St.
Milton, Pa 17847-2413
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond R.Ravert



MTC-00010042

From: George Paradela
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Paradela
723 Second Street
Rodeo, Ca 94572-1206
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.

[[Page 25249]]

    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    George Paradela



MTC-00010043

From: Albion W. Frazier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Albion W. Frazier
12227 Brompton Rd.
Carmel, In 46033-3366
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Albion W. Frazier



MTC-00010044

From: Kathryn Hrusovsky
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Hrusovsky
33850 Gilbert Ct.
North Ridgeville, OH 44039
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn Hrusovsky



MTC-00010045

From: Jasper Fortenberry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jasper Fortenberry
4507 Silver Wing Court
Castle Rock, CO 80104
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jasper Fortenberry



MTC-00010046

From: W.Lawrence Kimber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. Lawrence Kimber
106 Elmwood Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052-2612
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    W. Lawrence Kimber



MTC-00010047

From: Ray Fleet and Mrs. Ruby Fleet
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Fleet and Mrs. Ruby Fleet
3606 Bon Park Ct
Dallas, TX 75228-1936
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a

[[Page 25250]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ray and Ruby Fleet



MTC-00010048

From: Ann Porter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ann Porter
100 Sunset Dr.
Monroeville, PA 15146
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. The Microsoft suit can be 
blamed for a large part of the stock market avalanche since July of 
2000.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ann K. Porter



MTC-00010049

From: Linda Boone
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Boone
721 Taylor Ave.
Godfrey, IL 62035-2530
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    We also feel that what has been done to Microsoft could be 
viewed as a punishment for being innovative and creative in using 
one's talents to create something that can benefit many people.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Enoch and Linda Boone, Godfrey, Illinois



MTC-00010050

From: David Anthony
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dr. Ashcroft:
    Although I don't really know the detailed particulars of this 
case, I do know that it is questionable that David Boies was the 
attorney for Al Gore and for this Settlement case. There is a common 
suspicion among us conspiracy theorists....
    To me I understood that Clinton-Gore were somehow part owners of 
CBS, CNN, ViaCom and Time-Warner. If that is true, it seems like the 
much-publicized merge of AOL & Time-Warner might mean that the 
hidden agenda is to bring Microsoft down so that AOL&Time-Warner 
would be the Internet's major contender!!!! This would then be GREED 
as the motive for this lawsuit. I am hoping and praying that the 
truth here is revealed, and that true justice is served. I am so 
proud of you and all the work you have done, and this is just one 
more positive in this new administration. Thank you!
    Sincerely
    Patty Anthony
    7311 Glen Haven Drive
    San Antonio, TX 78239
    email care of: [email protected]



MTC-00010051

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I was a very early user of personal computers before Microsoft 
developed (took over from another company) an operating system. It 
was chaos with multiple, competing operating systems in those first 
years. It was far more expensive in two ways: (1) when a new 
computer was purchased, it either had to be the same brand or it 
required the purchase of a different operating system and (2) 
individual programs were more expensive and often not available for 
your brand of computer. The standardization of an operating system 
accepted by most users has led to reduced costs and ease of using 
programs, which range from technical through taxes to games. When 
monopolies lead to higher costs or less accessibility, then we, the 
public, need to be protected. In this case, we do not need to be 
protected. In fact, the effort against Microsoft has left us in 
jeopardy. Before retiring, I owned a small computerized accounting 
firm. I did not expect the government to break up Arthur Anderson 
and others in order to make it easier for me to compete. In a 
similar way, I do not expect the government to be a ``partner'' with 
firms trying to compete with Microsoft. I urge you to settle the 
Microsoft case, leaving the standards that Microsoft has created, 
which are a benefit to almost the entire public. Other systems are 
available, if one chooses them. All most of us want is to have left 
untouched the order from chaos that Microsoft has brought to the 
computing world.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    King K. Jones



MTC-00010052

From: Thom (038) Adele Donnelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is time to let go of Microsoft. It was an ill-advised suit in 
the first instance, initiated by a group of Anti Big Business Haters 
in the Clinton Administration. Also call off the dogs in the States 
that are looking to extort from microsoft in the same manner that 
was employed in the Tobacco Case--an abuse of Federal Power that is 
unlike anything this country has ever seen, and I hope we never see 
again!
    Thank You.
    Thom Donnelly
    Ft. Valley, VA



MTC-00010053

From: Rex Stubblefield

[[Page 25251]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, we have spend more than enough tax dollars trying 
to prove that our capitalistic system of government doesn't work. I 
live in a rural South Western Missouri community and have been 
working with our computer system since before UNIVAC. Thanks to our 
competitive business our planet and our USA is far ahead of our 
forefathers of only fifty years ago!
    Thanks for listening.
    Rex D. Stubblefield
    205 S. College Ave
    Marionville, MO 65705
    417-258-2967
    http://www.gbgm-umc.org/1umc-marionville/



MTC-00010054

From: s-com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Breaking up Micro$oft will not stop any of their practises. 
Forcing them to give software to schools and organizations just 
furthers the anti-competition, since any software given prevents the 
purchase of any thing else and encourages the use of only that 
software. This is what they want now. Why help them. In my opinion, 
faulty software is ``profitable''. That is, if the product does not 
work as advertised, the consumer is encouraged to replace the 
product. This requires the spending of more money for the ``fix''. 
If the so-called ``Lemon Laws'' applied to software then the faulty 
product could be recalled. This would remove the ``profitability'' 
factor and force the release of good products in the first place.
    Thanks for letting me give my opinion.



MTC-00010055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:04pm
Subject: Why Microsoft must be punished.
    First of all I am a MCSE in NT 4.0. This means I have passed 
enough of the Microsoft exams to become a Microsoft Certified 
Systems Engineer. I am now required 2 years later to become a MCSE 
in 2000 which I have to study hard for, pay for, and ultimately 
loose more hair for because 2 years from now I will be doing it 
again. Anyway here is my issues:
    (1) Security is terrible. Microsoft continually releases 
products which they claim is more secure then ever. I haven't seen 
proof of that at all yet. In the hacker community Microsoft is the 
target for practice. Just about any idiot can break into there 
default load (this is where their argument kicks in). They will tell 
you that their system is secure just not by default. That's like 
selling a security door and claiming it is secure but yet it doesn't 
have a lock and there is a big hole in the middle that you might 
have to fix first. Administrators in the IT industry are pretty fed 
up with the fact that almost every week we are working longer and 
longer hours to keep our systems patched (can only be done on nights 
and weekends away from our families). Then on top of it all we have 
our own government letting in foreigners on a H1B visa take away our 
jobs and driving down our wages (we work as many hours as just about 
any Lawyer, we cancel vacations, are paged in the middle of the 
night and make $65000 annually without over time says salary studies 
(I personally make 20,000 less then that). We the IT industry are 
fed up with our companies telling us we can't afford new server 
hardware cause it is going to cost us a small fortune to upgrade our 
desktop hardware to support the next release of Windows (Somehow I 
think Intel is involved in this whole crime as well). I shouldn't 
even tell you this but did you know you can use your screen saver to 
get Domain Admin permission on a NT box? Sorry went off on a right 
angle with that one.
    (2) Not Stable. Explain to me why our number one answer given on 
our helpdesk is reboot. Then tell me why that normally fixes just 
about every problem. I have a Linux machine running at home that I 
haven't rebooted in months. The NT servers at my site gets rebooted 
quarterly. The other day our DHCP service stopped on one of our 
machines which prevented the first floor from getting on the 
Network. I bet if I asked Microsoft what we should do to prevent 
this from happening again there answer would be ``upgrade to Windows 
2000'' (cha-ching), I can here the money moving towards them now. 
Personally I never really complained that much about Microsoft. If 
everything was always 100 percent stable I wouldn't have a reason to 
be employed where I work. However they imply time and time again 
that there Operating System gets better and better with every 
release.
    (3) They will not change. Did you know as I write this email 
they are putting plans together to crush Linux. 1 year ago they were 
saying that Linux wasn't a threat. Guess what? They were wrong. 
Linux is rapidly catching up to them in the Server market but they 
are training sales people to find the Linux machines within 
companies and supply a lot of bogus facts about how windows is 
superior to Linux (most of which not true). I wish a judge could 
walk into the court room and have a Windows NT (2000) server sitting 
there on a network with a Linux machine. Get ourselves a good 
(doesn't need to be great) hacker and prove to the judge that the 
quality of the software is terrible. Did you know that at one time 
NT used to claim that they were C2 certified. It's true. NT is C2 
certified as long as it is not on a network (what good is it if it 
isn't on a network?).
    Well I guess these are some of my biggest beefs.
    Please don't settle with them supplying free software to 
education. This will only make things worse.
    Good luck
    Jamie Jansen, MCSE
    Sr. LAN Administrator
    (952) 703-1779
    CC:rep.jim.abeler@ house.leg.state.mn.us@ inetgw,rep.ro...



MTC-00010056

From: DavidBowlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:11pm
Subject: Opinion on how to handle Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    I suggest that the Justice Department suggest to California and 
the other 9 states that elected to not settle--to not carry 
Microsoft products within their states. Maybe if California and the 
others realize that if Microsoft were not available, their economies 
would severely suffer, there would be some room for compromise.
    David Bowlin
    Sammamish, WA



MTC-00010057

From: Thomas J. Klinect
To: Microsoft ATR, fin@mobilization office.com@inetgw
Date: 1/10/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents, important this issue is to their constituents.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following:
--Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 1-800-641-2255;
--Email us at [email protected] to confirm that you took 
action.
    If you have any questions, please give us a call at 1-800-965-
4376. Thank you for your help in this matter.
    The Attorney General's fax and email are noted below.
    Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
    Email: [email protected]
    In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
    For more information, please visit these websites:
    www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
    www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
    Thomas J. Klinect
    TPI Inc.
    619-303-3292
TPI, INCORTORATED
2650 JAMACHA ROAD # 147, PMB 13
EL CAJON, CA 92019
FAX: 619-670-6157
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Justice 
Department lawsuit against Microsoft. If this lawsuit had succeeded 
to the extent envisioned by government lawyers, Microsoft's 
competitors, and some on the federal bench, the real penalty would 
have devolved to the entire IT industry, and thus to the American 
economy and people.
    Just because Microsoft's competitors have been unable to develop 
products that are comparable with Microsoft's products in

[[Page 25252]]

value to the consumer, it does not follow that the government should 
step in and. in effect, ``dumb down'' Microsoft in an effort make 
those less innovative companies more competitive with Microsoft. We 
have sect this principle tried with regard to our national 
educational policies, and it simply does: work.
    It is good for a company like Microsoft to stand on a principle 
of unapologetic excellence. If its products and innovations are 
better than anyone else's, then that is its reward for its work 
ethic, perseverance, and technical excellence. No laws are violated 
when a company develops superior products.
    Similarly, if Microsoft's products and innovations slip into 
second, or third place then that is where Microsoft deserves to be. 
That is the essence of the competitive marketplace. To have the 
government attempt to subvert the role of these competitive forces 
can serve only to upset the natural dynamic of the marketplace.
    The settlement now in place, one in which Microsoft has agreed 
to an equal pricing structure for licensing preinstalled software to 
hardware makers, provides a reasonable basis for closure of this 
matter, and I urge the Department of Justice to seek acceptance by 
all parties. I believe that this will best serve the interests of 
all of the parties, but more important, it will best serve the 
interests of the American people.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00010058

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the public is served when judicial oversite or 
legislation is made to stiffle companies that create technology to 
the degree that Microsoft has. The main reason we have this 
predicament in my opinion, is that ``weakened'' competitors like 
AOL, SUN Micro, et.al., and their legal teams purposly sought remedy 
through the courts as a viable competitive marketing tactic. 
Unfortunately for the consumer, these ``do-gooders'' have influenced 
the justice system to prosecute Microsoft for being successful. The 
band-wagon effect in this is huge with lobyists, lawyers and those 
``weakened'' competitors all reaping employment and huge sums of 
money. And then there is Microsoft, trying to exist by selling what 
we all agree are a great series of products addressing consumer 
preferences and providing what the market demands, and being 
punished for being successful at it. RTP.



MTC-00010059

From: Bryan A. Woodruff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This email is to express our opinion on the Microsoft 
settlement. My wife and I approve of the settlement with Microsoft 
and believe that it is in the public's best interest to complete the 
process and avoid continued litigation. We also encourage the 
remaining 9 states to join the Federal government and the other 
states to agree to these settlement terms.
    Bryan and Lisa Woodruff,
    Redmond, WA



MTC-00010060

From: Jim Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a giveaway that will barely hurt 
Microsoft. The terms are a disgrace. I hope that the abstaining 
Attorneys Generals hang in there and get what's right.
    James G. Miller
    1100 Irvine Blvd # 491
    Tustin, CA 92780-3534



MTC-00010061

From: CAD/Pacific
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I truly wish that the federal government would simply just drop 
this whole case against Microsoft. To be sure Microsoft probably 
does not have entirely clean hands. But let the free-market kill 
Microsoft. Linux is an up & coming operating system. Apple Computer 
is making a come-back. Let Microsoft kill themselves. If the 
government continues it's involvement, then all those persons 
supporting Microsoft will forever blame the government for 
Microsoft's failures. But if the government drops its case and 
allows the free-market to regulate Microsoft, then Microsoft will 
either change its ways or drown itself and have no one to blame but 
them selves.
    Bill Goode
    Small Business Owner in Los Angeles



MTC-00010062

From: John Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I would like to see an end to the Microsoft suit. I think this 
issue is hurting not only Microsoft, but the whole computer 
industry. We need to put it behind us. It does not help the economy 
to continue this case any longer. I also feel that Microsoft is 
being persecuted because of the fact that they are big. They make 
better products than most of their competition.
    John L. Wagner
    780 Norfolk Drive
    Carson City, NV 89703



MTC-00010063

From: ward j. burkholder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and move on to more important cases.
    Ward J. Burkholder
    230 Pleasant View Dr.
    Kerrville, Texas 78028
    [email protected]



MTC-00010064

From: K (038) J Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:28pm
Subject: Proposed settlement is fair
    Dear Justice Department,
    I believe that the proposed settlement between the US and 
Microsoft is fair and should be implemented. Further, I think the 
nine States should stop their independent efforts to seek further 
remedies, and join with the US to settle.
    It is interesting that most of the opposition to settlement 
comes from Microsoft's competitors and their employees. Our laws 
were designed to make sure consumers are treated fairly, not to 
permit companies to gang up on a company they don't like.
    Yours sincerely,
    Jeremy Butler
    57 Wildwood Lane, Friday Harbor, WA 98250
    (360) 378-7969



MTC-00010065

From: Jim Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its time to stop wasting our tax payers money on this type 
litigation. This country was built on FREE ENTERPRISE! If someone 
builds a ``better mouse trap'' let us be the judge out here in the 
market place.
    JP Tate
    Chairman of the Board
    Culligan of Charlotte



MTC-00010066

From: Robert C. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: The government has ostensibly pursued Microsoft case 
on behalf of consumers, however, the very consumers it has sought to 
protect are being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had 
on the technology market and the entire national economy. The 
proposed settlement, agreed to in 9 states, encourages consumer 
product choice, promotes product innovation & provides non-Microsoft 
related computer & software manufacturers with confidence in 
marketing their own products. It also frees up the Department of 
Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm 
the public.
    We think the State Attorneys General should discontinue this 
litigation!!
    Sincerely,
    Bob & Carolyn Phillips
    122 Raintree Blvd.
    Niceville, Fl 32578-3908



MTC-00010067

From: David Ure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Congratulations on achieving the long awaited settlement on the 
Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit. Your efforts and desire to find the 
compromise and balance for the technology industry is greatly 
appreciated. The lawsuit should never have happened and the economy 
and innovations can now begin to progress again.

[[Page 25253]]

    As a legislator I am always concerned with economic 
opportunities. Utah is a technology state and we need to start 
generating interest again in creating new products and ideas. 
Resolution of concerns for the Microsoft competitors is needed. It 
appears that AOL, Oracle and Apple have all had their concerns 
addressed. I hightly support the settlement and hope that you will 
bring this issue to a close.
    Sincerely,
    David Ure



MTC-00010068

From: Chris Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:40pm
Subject: Re: PLEASE DO NOT SETTLE (fwd)
    Thank you for your thoughtful correspondence concerning the 
Microsoft antitrust case. We value hearing from citizens on matters 
of public interest and appreciate your taking the time to express 
your concerns. As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States 
Department of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement. 
California did not join in that settlement because the settlement 
would not accomplish the goals we set when we initially filed the 
case. Nor would it accomplish the remedial goals set by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar 
conduct in the future; (2) to spark competition; and (3) to deprive 
Microsoft of its illegal gains. The judge of the federal trial court 
currently is considering the settlement. You may express your 
opinion to the court by filing written comments with the U.S. 
Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, at the following email 
address: [email protected] Please type ``Microsoft Comments'' 
in the subject line. You may also fax comments to 202-307-1454, or 
mail comments to Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division, U.S. 
Department of Justice, 601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 
20530-0001.
    Again, thank you for sharing your views in this case.
    Chris Williams
    [email protected]>
    I am a concerned citizen, student, and IT worker. Under the 
currently propesed settlement, Microsoft will loose nothing and it's 
monopoly will remain intact. They have promised $1.1 billion to 
school, $900 million of which is Microsoft software, ``at cost.'' 
Tis means Microsoft pays $0.14 to burn the cds and writes the cost 
down as $300, or whatever the wholesale price is for the specific 
product. DO NOT SETTLE FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAN A BREAKUP OF THE 
COMPANY! Period.



MTC-00010069

From: Phillip David Mosher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Sirs:
    Since DOS ver. 3, I have used products produced by Microsoft. 
They have been quality products, designed to make our lives easier. 
Microsoft has beaten their competition in the market place. I now 
use Windows 2000 and Office XP. I am very pleased with these 
products.
    I do not feel that the Justice Dept. has been fair in their 
pursuit of Microsoft. I do not feel that the Justice Dept. and the 
states involved have the best interest of me, the end user, in view 
in this case. This case has communicated one thing quite clearly--If 
you have good products, can beat your competitions and produce 
exceptional growth, the government will surely treat you very badly. 
Microsoft has helped our nation. Microsoft has changed the way we do 
things, making life easier. Why are we punishing a good thing?
    I remember when the government took Kodak to task over film 
patents because Kodak had done too well in building good products. 
Kodak was forced to release some of those patents. Today Japan 
controls the film market. Is that what the Justice Dept. wants to do 
to Microsoft?
    Sincerely,
    Phillip D. Mosher
    706--84th ST NW
    Bradenton, FL 34209
    [email protected]



MTC-00010070

From: Robert H. Hacke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please stop wasting our money on the prosecution of Microsoft!!! 
Our markets and the entire economy are being affected in a negative 
way by this ongoing farce. It would seem that when a person or a 
company succeeds in this country, the government interferes to put a 
stop to that success. This is harming our country more than helping 
it.
    The proposed settlement should be immediately accepted and the 
litigation completed!
    Sincerely,
    Robert & Joanne Hacke
    10215 White Mt. Rd.
    Sun City, AZ 85351



MTC-00010071

From: Louise Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs-
    I support the Bush administration`s position on the Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Louise Kennedy



MTC-00010072

From: carol williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:50pm
Subject: MICROSFT SETTLEMENT
    I SUPPORT THIS SETTLEMENT AND THINK WE NEED TO BE DONE WITH IT 
ALREADY..DON'T WE HAVE ENOUGH BIGGER THINGS TO WORRY 
ABOUT....SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH AND BE DONE WITH THIS 
ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00010073

From: Kathy Mohnkern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:50pm
Subject: my complaint
    The only thing I want to say is I bought a computer three years 
ago. It got damaged and when I went to buy another one I had to buy 
it with the same microsoft programs I already had. So I had to spend 
my hard earned money one the same thing. I think microsoft should 
have to pay all customers back for their forced double purchases.
    Thanks
    Kathy Mohnkern



MTC-00010075

From: tiger2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    I believe it is time to move along and let the American spirit 
of free enterprise continue. I support the Microsoft Corp. and 
believe the Federal and State & Local Governments should cease and 
desist from any further persecution of Microsoft.
    Ed Hart
    84-35 64th Road
    Middle Village, NY 11379



MTC-00010076

From: J.C. Bowman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1808 West End Avenue Suite 1214
Post Office Box 23348
Nashville, TN 37202-3348
(615) 327-3120 Voice
(615) 327-3126 Fax
Email: [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
Attn: Renata B. Hesse
Subject: Comment on Proposed Final Judgment
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    The Tennessee Institute for Public Policy joins with our fellow 
members of the State Policy Network, and encourages you to accept 
the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. 
We are a state-based, non-partisan policy research group dedicated 
to promoting free markets and open competition.
    This settlement reflects a triumph of the rule of law. It is a 
perfect map of remedies laid alongside the areas where the Appeals 
Court found against Microsoft. Certain Microsoft competitors and 
other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their 
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from 
prohibition on what they call ``product tying'' to a breakup of the 
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not 
address products that were not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to

[[Page 25254]]

state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. 
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an 
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court 
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In our view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    As leaders in advancing free market competition in our 
respective states we believe this settlement serves the best 
interests of the American public. It fairly resolves a complex and 
burdensome anti-trust case that is having severe impacts far beyond 
one company, a case that is acting as a drag on one of the most 
vibrant sectors of our economy. Settlement of this case will free 
the high-technology industry to put its fullest efforts into 
innovation and creativity, and will spur competition in a way that 
will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration. Please include in official 
records and court transcripts.
    Signed,
    John C. Bowman
    Director of Education Policy
    (Electronic Signature)



MTC-00010077

From: Barbara Seels
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/10/02  5:59pm
Subject: microsoft proposal
    As a professional educator, I want to speak against the 
microsoft proposal to give equipment to schools. This is another 
marketing ploy without the potential to cause substantive change 
except to drive other vendors out of the market. Microsoft will 
probably do this irregardless of this decree. Equipment without a 
context or constraints on what is given is probably going to make 
little difference. The schools are best when they represent the 
diversity in the market also.



MTC-00010079

From: Sue Fuessel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sue Fuessel
4077 Commissioners Lane
San Angelo, Tx 76905-7557
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers'; dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Odis and Sue Fuessel



MTC-00010080

From: Jonathan Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jonathan Wright
576 Shady Grove Drive
Montgomery, AL 36109
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Wright



MTC-00010081

From: Don Wilkinson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don Wilkinson 6631 Apache Run
    Theodore, Al 36582
    January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create

[[Page 25255]]

new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    don wilkinson



MTC-00010082

From: Robert Adams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Adams
10512 School House Ln.
Austin, TX 78750
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Adams



MTC-00010083

From: Debbie G Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like my voice to be heard where the Microsoft Settlement 
is concerned. I believe the agreement reached between Microsoft, the 
nine states and the federal government is very reasonable and fair 
to all parties involved! I do not wish to have the litigation 
prolonged.
    The last thing the American economy needs is more litigation 
that benefits only a few and stifles innovation.
    I say, SIGN THE SETTLEMENT ``as is'' and move on to more 
important things.
    Concerned US Citizen
    Debbie Turner
    2690 Throatlatch Lane
    Marietta, Georgia 30064



MTC-00010084

From: The Shaws
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am 63 years old. I use my computer a lot in community and 
church related volunteer activities. I am pleased with my Microsoft 
software. I believe it is time to get this litigation settled once 
and for all.
    Robert H. Shaw, Jr.



MTC-00010085

From: John Baitinger, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    John Baitinger, Sr.
P.O.Box 171
Alloway, NJ 08001-0171
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John S. Baitinger, Sr.



MTC-00010086

From: Bill (038) Ann Hauckes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone! They are the reason why so many people 
have computers in the first place. Can you imagine if everybody's 
computer ran a different operating system and different software? 
It's bad enough that we have the ``Microsoft people'' and the ``MAC 
people'' ( and the 3 people who use Linux) not being able to 
communicate! So what if Bill Gates is the richest man in the world? 
He deserves it. More power to him! Why don't you do something about 
AOL/Time-Warner or the drug companies or the insurance companies or 
the tobacco companies???



MTC-00010087

From: Hoffman (038) Hoffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General Ashcroft,
    Please complete the settlement of the Microsoft case and let the 
market place determine the winners and losers, not government.
    Marcus Hoffman
    P.S. I am not a Microsoft employee.



MTC-00010088

From: Sharon Herron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the current proposed settlement!!!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00010089

From: Tom Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Enough already. Any further litigation is not in the consumers 
interest. This is about bashing success AND money. Letting Time-
Warner-AOL, Sun Microsystems and Oracle use the Justice Department 
to fight their market battles is ridiculous. State AG's in 
particular are doing a consumers a disservice. All they want is 
money and political recognition. Let the free market work. If MS 
fails the consumer they will fail without this total waste of time 
and resources.
    Thanks,
    Tom Stephenson
    Surprise, Arizona



MTC-00010090

From: Joe Goodson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:25pm
Subject: Litigation
    Personally, I think that the states are just trying to pull a 
Bill Clinton and try to snooker Microsoft out of money like they did 
the cigarrette makers. They need to STOP litigation NOW!!



MTC-00010091

From: Aaron Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:27pm
Subject: stop attacking Microsoft
    The Clinton Administration started attacking Microsoft which led 
to the current bear market we are currently struggling to get out 
of. It's a crock of ca-ca that the Reno Justice Department used 
Microsoft products as a tool to attack Microsoft. Why, because 
Microsoft is a leading innovator. Lead, follow or get out of the way 
as Lee Iacocaa said of Chrysler. I have personally enjoyed and 
profitted from Microsoft products and I stand behind the company all 
the way. Microsoft is what the American dream is all about. Make a 
product people need/want, market it, and advance an industry, a 
nation. Bill Gates did for computers what Henry Ford did for

[[Page 25256]]

the car. Innovation must be allowed to reign free.
    Release Microsoft from the anti-trust suit and let free 
competition rule!
    Aaron B. Johnson
    9824 Manor
    Allen Park, MI 48101



MTC-00010092

From: Larry Woldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:28pm
Subject: Private Depositions
    That is my court room and my prosecutors and, one of the 
remaining nine states suing Microsoft is Minnesota where I live.
    I do not believe in ``sealed'' settlements that allow companies 
to hide what they did by paying off someone and I certainly don't 
believe that a publicly traded company in a federal court has the 
right to hid sworn testimony.
    There are a few million Americans out here who pay for two-
thirds of the people involved (the judge and the prosecutor) and we 
pay for the courts themselves. I want to know what Microsoft is 
``swearing'' to and believe that I have every right to have access 
to that testimony.
    Thank You,
    Larry Woldt
    [email protected]



MTC-00010093

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a computer user who always felt I was able to purchase any 
software program I wanted. I have not felt that Microsoft has 
prevented me from doing this in any way. In my opinion the lawsuits 
are just screwing up the consumer by doling out multi dollars to the 
States. They are not interested in the consumer, they are looking 
for all the cash-cows they can find so the politions and the lawyers 
can benefit. Don' hurt us consumers any more by awarding any more 
funds that Microsoft has to pay to the States. Enough is enough.
    A. E. Williamson



MTC-00010094

From: gary blunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:32pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please do not allow consumers to be hurt anymore.There has been 
a waste of tax payers money on this and a waste of time for the 
department of justice. Please do the right thing.
    Gary



MTC-00010095

From: Dave Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:40pm
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    I have written today to comment on the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. While I understand 
the honorable intentions of the judge and court in settling the case 
in order to prompt the economic recovery of the nation's largest 
company and thereby, in theory, to prompt economic recovery of the 
nation, I deplore the toothless settlement that has been accepted by 
the Department of Justice prosecutors.
    There are three things I feel must be included in a settlement 
that would enact real change in the operating system market and 
allow for true competition:
    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. Microsoft's success, while due in some part to internal 
innovation, relies heavily on technologies developed by the public 
sector. The Internet and much of the networking and software 
technology essential for Microsoft Windows have been fostered by 
federal grants and Department of Defense research money. As such, 
any Microsoft networking protocols which build or modify these 
publicly developed standards must be published in full and approved 
by an independent network protocol body. This will prevent Microsoft 
from using their market position to seize de facto control of the 
Internet.
    I trust that you will attempt to enact real and meaningful 
change in the operating system market. This is a true national 
security issue. Microsoft may be important to the nation's economy 
in the short term, but long term economic security can only come 
from a free and efficient market for operating systems and 
networking technologies.
    I care about these issues and I vote.
    David M. Jones
    1142 Key St.
    Houston, Texas 77009
    713-880-4233
    CC: Senator Gramm, Senator Hutchison



MTC-00010096

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir
    It is my opinion that much too much time, money, and resources 
are being spent pursuing a company that has every right to coduct 
its business as it sees fit. The robust economy we have had for the 
last ten years is a direct result of this company, a company some 
anti-capitolists would like to see destroyed to feed their socialist 
egos. Business is what made this country of mine great, and ruining 
businessess is what will destroy it. I urge you to dismiss the suit 
against this great company and use my money, time, and resources on 
cases worthy of prosecution.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Vandenboom
    524 124th St
    Franksville, WI 53126
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]...



MTC-00010097

From: Sherry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:51pm
Subject: stop wasting taxpayers' money on the persecution of 
Microsoft.
    Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the decade-long competitor-
driven persecution of Microsoft. America's taxpayers have had to 
fund this prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating 
harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
    The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice, 
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related 
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing 
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources 
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
    Some of the State Attorneys General want to continue this 
litigation: Don't let them! I support the Bush Administration and 
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
    Sherry A Jones
    9021 N Swan Rd Unit B
    Milwaukee Wi 53224
    414.371.2305



MTC-00010098

From: Jan (038) Dick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    We feel that enough tax money has been spent trying to ruin 
Microsoft. The competitors who initiated the action are jealous of 
Microsoft's ability to produce software which is good for the 
consumer and have tried to get ``a piece of the action.'' The 
Clinton DOJ was more than willing to pursue a successful company in 
order to cater to the contributors to their party.
    We feel that Microsoft should never have been prosecuted in the 
first place and thus should be left alone now. The sooner, the 
better.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Jan & Dick Rees
    816 Woodbine St.
    Willard, OH 44890
    P.S. Keep up the good work. We support you all the way. God 
Bless you and God Bless America.



MTC-00010099

From: james jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  6:59pm

[[Page 25257]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a transparent sellout of the public 
interest and a travesty of justice. It sends the message that crime 
is OK, as long as the perpetrator is big enough.
    The settlement has so many loopholes designed to allow the 
perpetrator to continue the activity that the case was all about, 
that it is a legal nullity.
    Indeed, the perpetrator right now is, in full public view, 
continuing this activity, while daring the States that are 
continuing to pursue the case to encompass its current activity, to 
exploit such pursuit as a ground for further delay.
    Microsoft has to date almost successfully demonstrated that 
infinite delay is a valid legal strategy, and that bribery of King 
George's DOJ is an accomplished fact.
    Yours Truly,
    Dr James L Jenkins



MTC-00010100

From: Paul M League
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General Ashcroft
    Department of Justice
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    The proposed Justice Department settlement with Microsoft 
encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product innovation, and 
provides non-Microsoft related computer and software manufacturers 
with confidence in marketing their own products. It also frees up 
Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that 
currently do actually harm the public, as well as the more pressing 
anti-terror efforts.
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit, and ask that you, the various State 
Attorneys, and the Court of Jurisdiction also do the same.
    Sincerely,
    Paul M. League
    PO Box 7007
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    1.310.277.3244



MTC-00010101

From: Chad Bennion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    Attorney General John Ashcroft;
    I am sending you this email in support of the Microsoft/
Department of Justice settlement offer. The Lawsuit should never 
have been pursued by our federal government and should have been 
left to the Microsoft competitors to resolve. This mired issue 
should be brought to an end. I strongly urge your acceptance of the 
settlement.
    Sincerely;
    Chad E. Bennion
    Utah House of Representatives
    District 44



MTC-00010102

From: THOMAS PHILLIPS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft is being punished for being successful. This is not 
the American way. Let Microsoft again lead the way. We will all gain 
and grow with thier success.
    Thomas Phillips
    2525 Ocean Blvd. # H5
    Corona del Mar, CA 92625



MTC-00010103

From: Minda Stillion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have personally felt my family very affected by this long 
process, both in our pursuit of the American Dream, and finacially. 
I long for settlement to take place, so we can see the positive 
effect in the stock market and job markets, so that eventually 
confidence in innovative freedom will heal and return.
    Sincerely,
    Mirinda Stillion



MTC-00010104

From: Ruth Silveira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Its time to knock off the witch hunt for and against Microsoft 
and Bill Gates!! Can't the Federal Gov't. find someone else to 
harass? This whole thing has been very costly and try as you might 
you didn't succeed at driving Microsoft out of business and breaking 
up the company that has made computers accessible to all of us. 
LEAVE them alone. Go after the people in our government that have 
shady dealings.
    Ruth Silveira



MTC-00010105

From: David Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I completely support the settlement with Microsoft, Inc.; but 
would have liked to see Microsoft completely exonerated without 
having to pay out one cent in the settlement. Market forces, not the 
Judicial System should be the sole determiner of what products are 
put on the market place; and the Democrats' consistent attempts to 
compromise this system is as Communistic as Marx or Lenin 
themselves. If ever another enterpreneur can make a better product 
than Microsoft then let that product come to the forefront, and we 
will purchase it.
    Thank You,
    David Tucker
    Tellico Plains, TN



MTC-00010106

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computor consumer, I believe that the action brought 
against Microsoft is an abomination. I use many of their products 
because they are the best for my use, not because I was forced.
    When I got my first modem, my provider gave me Netscape software 
as a default when I installed the program. They are not being sued 
for anti-trust.
    There are several products and systems that do the same thing. 
Is it okay for them but not Microsoft.
    My installation disk for Microsoft Windows 98, also has a 
folderful of other internet providers that I can opt for if I so 
desire. Is that anti-trust? I equate this action with those who want 
to take our language away and create chaos by having more than one 
official language.
    I use Microsoft products because I like them and consider them 
best for my needs. I have never felt obligated or forced to use any 
of their products. If a computor manufacturer feels that Microsoft 
is being unfair in any way, they should choose a different OS for 
their product, and let us choose our own. Better yet, have them 
install the OS that the customer wants at the time of purchase.



MTC-00010107

From: Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Just a quick comment on the Microsoft case-I am glad it is over. 
Considering the fact that the DOJ failed to provide any evidence 
that MS is a monopoly or restricted competition. All the case did 
was to further prove that any successful company can have its 
jealous competitors have the government do to it that they could not 
do in an open marketplace.
    It is a good thing that the MS case will be settled at the 
federal level. I just hope that all of the state attorneys-general 
stop this extortion as well.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Mills
    [email protected]
    CC: Jeff Mills



MTC-00010108

From: Kelly Casaday
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a former aide to former Congressman Merrill Cook and support 
the proposed settlement with Microsft.
    Kelly Casaday



MTC-00010109

From: Spencer Stokes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    I am writing to urge you to settle the Microsoft law suit. I 
believe that the federal government should not be involved in free 
enterprise system. As a conservative I believe that the markets 
should dictate commerce and not the federal government.
    Please do your duty and work for the settlement.
    Spencer Stokes
    Former Executive Director of the Utah Republican Party.



MTC-00010110

From: Jason Frankenfield

[[Page 25258]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:41pm
Subject: Dear Judge:
    Dear Judge:
    I urge you to end the trial against Microsoft without taking an 
adverse action against Microsoft or imposing any form of sanctions 
on it. As a consumer, I do not believe that Microsoft's conduct has 
been harmful. In fact, Microsoft has brought incredible products to 
consumers at reasonable prices. Microsoft should be allowed the 
liberty to design and market its products as it likes, and to 
conduct its business operation without government interference.
    Please dismiss the actions against Microsoft with prejudice. 
Please do not impose sanctions against Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Jason Frankenfield



MTC-00010111

From: Gerald E Vinella Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Busch Administration and Microsoft to settle this 
lawsuit. It is not healthy for this country to allow this to 
continue.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald E. Vinella Jr.



MTC-00010112

From: Mr. SJB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings!
    I fully and unequivocally support the DOJ's attempt to settle 
the lawsuit against Bill Gate's Microsoft Corp. I am aware, like 
other Americans, that 9 states have chosen not to sign onto this 
plan, but I believe that, truly, ``enough is enough'' and its time 
to move on, and leave this sordid affair in the past, where it 
belongs.
    High technology, as exemplied by companies like Microsoft, 
Oracle, Intel, & many, many others, cannot have its ideas, 
innovations, and such be stifled by ``red tape'', bureaucracy, 
lawsuits, and other wasteful government intrusions such as what was 
begun by the Clinton Administration. Please use this golden 
opportunity to end this charade once and for all, and while 
Microsoft does not escape unscathed, their punishment has already 
been delivered, and unfortunately, the national economy, the 
technology industry, and the consumer have all suffered along with 
them, both directly and indirectly.
    Thank you for your time & attention to this note.
    God Bless America
    9.11.01



MTC-00010113

From: GARY PORTER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  7:53pm
    It is my hope that the court will accept the settlement agreed 
to by the DOJ and some of the states. It seems a fair and reasonable 
response to the anti-trust case.



MTC-00010114

From: Dale Langford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dale Langford
    2001 Christine
    Pampa, TX 79065
    January 10, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Langford



MTC-00010115

From: kingsland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have used Microsoft Products for years and have been very 
satisfied in most cases. I use Netscape and do not feel that 
Microsoft has ruined Netscape. In fact, competition has probably 
made their (both) browsers more user friendly and reliable.
    P.G. King, Electrical Engineer (Retired)



MTC-00010116

From: Steve Berryman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Steve Berryman
    101 Mohican Trail
    Lake Kiowa, TX 76240
    January 10, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Berryman



MTC-00010117

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I have followed the developments of the Microsoft settlement for 
the past couple of years, and I am still amazed that this 
corporation has been dragged through so much persecution.
    I am a middle school teacher in Denver, Colorado and not a 
computer whiz, but I feel that Microsoft has done nothing but help 
me. Three years ago when I purchased my first computer, I purchased 
a Hewlett Packard that came with the Microsoft operating system and 
browser. If I had had to buy all these things separately I wouldn't 
have know what to buy and, too, it probably would have cost me more. 
I was very grateful that Mr. Gates had had the foresight to guide me 
in this process Since that time I have become quite proficient with 
the computer. I'm on the Internet now(AOL), and I'm accomplishing 
great things. Not only am I buying and selling stocks on line just 
last week a light switch went out in my kitchen and I logged on to 
``Ask Jeeves'' and found out how to replace it myself.
    If you restrict Microsoft's ability to create and innovate then 
you restrict the genius of mankind. They have done good things for 
the consumer and good things for our country. If the Department of 
Justice had spent the time and money pursuing terrorism and Bin 
Laden, the tragedy in New York could have been adverted. Instead you 
have been pursuing Bill Gates who has contributes a lot money to 
better the world and help people.
    The majority of people unhappy about Microsoft are his 
competitors. They are distraught because they could not do what 
Microsoft has already done.
    A Colorado Consumer,
    Judy J. Simmons

[[Page 25259]]



MTC-00010118

From: lucy zarate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    For the last four years I have been following the debate over 
the freedom to innovate. During this time my only hope has been that 
this Microsoft case should be settled as soon as possible. This 
settlement will certainly help our economy, especially in these 
difficult times, and it will benefit us the consumers and the 
software industry.
    Thank you in advance for helping expedite this case.
    Lucy Z. Breton



MTC-00010119

From: SCOT WOODROOF
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to state emphatically 
about how I feel about the settlement with Microsoft. This was 
another case of blatant assault on private industry by a so called 
president, and Justice Department that only served to spend more tax 
payer money. I applaud the manner in which John Ashcroft and the 
current Justice Department handled this situation to restore the 
tech industry and the confidence of it's investors. The down turn in 
the Nasdaq, and specifically the tech industry can be traced to the 
beginnings of this ridiculous lawsuit. Please keep this settlement 
in place, or we can only look forward to more of the same in the 
capital markets. I would like to take this opportunity to also tell 
you what a wonderful job our real Justice Department is doing for 
this great United States!! Thank You!
    Scot Woodroof



MTC-00010120

From: Rev. Samuel M. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inet...
Date: 1/10/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am a staunch Constitutional Conservative, I 
STRENUOUSLY disagree with the ACU on this point. Please DO NOT 
settle with Microsoft. They have done everything they could to stomp 
anyone and everyone who stands in their way. I would like to see 
Bill Gates even imprisoned for his callous and unbending attitudes.
    Rev. Samuel M. Smith
    Travel Advisor
    Affordable World Travel & Tours
    Editor, Publisher Up Way Publications
    Bible Instructor Followers of Jesus Christ Fellowship



MTC-00010121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:11pm
Subject: Government Waste
    It's time to drop the suit against Microsoft , stop wasting 
taxpayer money, and let them get on with their legitimate business 
of making money. Sometimes it seems that we tend to punish success 
and reward failure.
    David Raun,
    Westerville, OH



MTC-00010122

From: Brent Lattin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I want to voice my support for the Microsoft settlement. The 
issues involved grow older and less relevant by the hour and the 
shape of the competitive landscape and economic conditions as a 
whole make it imperative that this case end sooner rather than 
later.
    Sincerely,
    Brent Lattin



MTC-00010123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this case should be settled. I have found it ridiculous 
in the first place. Had it not been for Microsoft most people would 
never have learned how to use a computer. They were innovative in 
getting a good program out there for the lay person. One that could 
be used by everyone. I have worked on DOS platforms, Windows and 
UNIX and know that Windows is the best. I know lots of senior 
citizens (I am 59) have gone online because of the ease through 
windows.
    I have never had a problem using any Internet access I wanted 
through Windows. In fact I do not use Microsoft's Internet access I 
am on CompuServe. I find this whole legal action silly and a waste 
of taxpayers money and government time. We have more important 
things to worry about in the economy to not settle this case and get 
it done with.
    I have been using Windows since 1988.
    Yours,
    Carolyn Weaver



MTC-00010124

From: zebidiah(a)attbi.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please end this foolishness. Microsoft is not the enemy.
    Thank you,
    Gary P. Beck



MTC-00010125

From: Howard H. Hatton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Drop all litagation against Micrtosoft. This company is doing a 
good job in the market and is much more valuable to the, economy, 
balance of payments, competition world wide and the people of the US 
than all their competetors combined. This litagation is only 
benefiting the trial lawyers and other special interest groups that 
stand to gain from this futhermore the judges in this case are not 
have the expertise to properly judge this. Remember that Microsoft 
is not only in competition with American companies but are in 
competition world wide.
    Howard Hatton
    [email protected]



MTC-00010126

From: Tom Hemmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:30pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dave Wilson of The LA Times writes about Apple's pre-show hype 
and the associated let-down at the keynote, concluding ``But the 
company has no real model for growth. Microsoft's monopoly power 
precludes any massive shift away from Windows, so how can Apple sell 
more boxes? The best thing Apple can do is to make computers that 
seamlessly integrate into a Windows network.'' See, even brain 
challenged reporters know about microsoft. And you want to give 
them, what amounts to a subsidy in education? I bet that between all 
of you, you would be hard pressed to come up with two gonads.



MTC-00010127

From: Martin C. Ritter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let Microsoft off the hook. A slap on the wrist 
will only embolden them. Competition as we have traditionally known 
it in America has already been dealt a body blow by this company 
which has turned lying, cheating, and stealing into ``business as 
usual.''



MTC-00010128

From: Vicki Corona
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
    Dear Attorney Ashcroft: First, thank you for being the wonderful 
AG you are! We're so thrilled you were confirmed! We love the entire 
Bush administration. I think most citizens knew that God couldn't 
possibly allow any more slime in the White House. Second, I just 
received an email concerning the Microsoft ``trials'' and would like 
to add my voice to the others. Without Microsoft, I don't think any 
of us ``ordinary folk'' would EVER have been able to learn how to 
manipulate a computer. If anything, Bill Gates should be thanked, 
not sued. Jealousy always raises it's ugly, evil head when any 
entrepreneur is successful. He created something fabulous, useful, 
and easy for the masses . . . . Gates should be rewarded, not 
penalized! Let's stop wasting taxpayer money and leave him alone to 
create something else we can all enjoy. Thank you and God bless you 
richly.
    Vicki Corona



MTC-00010129

From: John Sturrock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a washington state resident. antitrust action against 
mircosoft should cease because it is is the only comany that can 
compete with time warner-aol which was allowed to go thru.
    John Sturrock
    2308 E 9th st

[[Page 25260]]

    Vancouver, WA 98661



MTC-00010130

From: OSCAR WENTZEL
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mr. Ashcroft,
    I simply can't understand why the government continues to spend 
thousands of dollars to get Bill Gates. This country is supposed to 
be free enterprise. You work extra hard building a company, make a 
lot of money and then you are penalized for being greedy. Let the 
other software companies work as hard as Bill Gates has and they 
will do just fine. Just because he has instituted smart business 
practices, he shouldn't be penalized. If these other companies had a 
better product, they would be in the driver's seats.
    Tough luck if they aren't as smart as Gates. Stop wasting our 
money. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kathy Wentzel age 67
    Bedford, Tx.



MTC-00010131

From: Scott Rarden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    I would like to respectfully give my comments on the settlement 
process in the Microsoft monopoly decision.
    Microsoft is trying to turn this decision from something that is 
a punishment into something that is a gift. With as large as the 
cash reserves of this company are, especially in these troubled 
economic times, it would have no problem paying the complete fine in 
cash. Instead it has offered to provide free software to the 
educational system.
    This accomplishes three things for Microsoft. The first is that 
it, even if the product was only valued at cost rather than full 
retail, allows the company to avoid the full cost of the settlement. 
Given the choice between parting with cash or offering to provide 
copies of something they have already produced--they would have to 
be insane to pick the cash. The second thing is that it allows them 
to grasp more of the education desktop market...the only remaining 
desktop market that they do not have monopoly power in. This 
settlement would `punish' their abuse of monopoly power by giving 
them the opportunity to increase their monopoly. The third thing is 
that it allows them to look noble for offering to `help' the poorer 
schools in the nation--when it obviously is a cynical attempt to 
avoid taking responsibility for breaking the law while at the same 
time expanding the very power that led them to break the law in the 
first place.
    I plead with you to not approve the settlement plan that 
Microsoft has offered. It would be against reason and justice, and 
would only encourage them to maintain the same practices that they 
have been found guilty of.
    Thank you for your time, and the IT community awaits your 
decision for good or ill.



MTC-00010132

From: Congdon, Brad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/10/02  8:52pm
Subject: Please accept the proposed settle in the Microsoft case
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Antitrust Division,
    Please accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust case 
involving Microsoft.
    I am a US citizen living in Washington State, and I work in the 
high-tech industry (not at Microsoft). The opportunity to settle 
this case with Microsoft is an opportunity to respect the rule of 
law, to restore citizen's confidence in their justice system, and to 
begin the process of allowing the high-tech sector of the US economy 
to recover and prosper once again. In my view, there can be no valid 
objection to this settlement because every major finding of the 
Appeals Court is addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically 
prohibits and prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the 
proposed settlement will send a signal that the rule of law 
prevails, not the rule of special interests; that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would be a serious blow to the smooth functioning of free 
markets and the rule of law that protects them. For business to 
thrive in America, it must know that our government uses its power 
to enforce the law, not to randomly punish successful companies.
    This settlement serves the best interests of American business 
and the American public. It fairly resolves a burdensome anti-trust 
case that is having severe impacts far beyond Microsoft, a case that 
is acting as a drag on an entire sector of our economy. Settlement 
of this case will free the high-technology industry to innovate and 
create, and will spur competition in a way that will directly 
benefit the entire economy.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Brad Congdon
    8242 61st Ave NE
    Olympia, WA 98516



MTC-00010133

From: Bruce Truax
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hon. Renata B. Hesse,
    I am very disappointed in the Federal Government's remedy for 
the Microsoft Antitrust suit. Although I am a conservative and I 
normally do not like to see the government interfering in private 
business, this is one case where I think intervention is justified 
and necessary. I am a long time Apple Macintosh user and as the 
world slowly migrates to almost 100% Microsoft I find that I have 
less choice with regards to software and hardware options for my 
computer. Much of the problem is related to the method which 
Microsoft has used to increase the integration of their software. I 
must admit that this increased integration has improved the ease of 
use and functionality of the personal computer for users of Windows 
but the method by which this is done slowly but steadily forces 
competitors out of the market. From my vantage point it appears that 
when Microsoft wants to add functionality to their operating system 
they tend to chose a proprietary solution rather than an already 
existing standard. This has happened numerous times with Java as a 
prime example. As these functions become proprietary, users of other 
operating systems suffer. For example, there are now numerous web 
sites which cannot be viewed by users of Linux or Macintosh 
computers because the site designer has chosen a Microsoft 
Proprietary technology for certain web site functions. As it becomes 
more difficult for other operating systems to obtain access to 
internet content, hardware and software, even the last few holdouts 
will be forced to migrate to Microsoft windows until they have 100% 
of the market.
    An additional problem is related to the security of our internet 
infrastructure. As the operating systems on the internet become more 
homogenous, the opportunity for a well written, malicious virus to 
seriously affect the infrastructure of he internet is increasing. A 
more diverse population of computers and operating systems on the 
internet would make it less vulnerable to malicious attack.
    Although I do not know what the proper remedy is for this 
problem, it is obvious to me that the Federal settlement is not 
sufficient.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce E. Truax
    Optical Engineering Consultant
    Diffraction Limited Design LLC
    388 Wedgewood Road
    Southington, CT 06489
    http://www.dld-llc.com
    email: [email protected]
    voice: 860-276-0450
    fax: 860-620-9026



MTC-00010134

From: Bonnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  8:55pm
Subject: Justice?
    Stop persecuting success! We need many, many more people like 
Bill Gates. Please stop taking away the incentive for people to work 
hard and succeed. The government's interfering with Microsoft has 
not helped the people, Microsoft or the government. Microsoft has 
been doing a fantastic job for its customers. Stop trying to ``fix 
it'' when in fact you are really trying to break it.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie J. Brown
    1503 Reaves St.
    West Plains, MO 65775



MTC-00010135

From: Ingrid Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly:
    I am writing to ask you to overturn the Proposed Final Judgment 
which, I believe is the term for the current settlement in the 
Microsoft case. Though not a lawyer or a computer expert, it seems 
to me that the anti-trust laws of our country have been violated,

[[Page 25261]]

and yet no significant penalty has been given nor future deterrent 
set in place. As a home-schooling mother, I have studied along with 
the children, the emergence of the anti-trust laws in our nation, 
and see them as important safeguards of the freedom of enterprise 
and opportunity that we are blessed with as Americans. At this point 
in history, the smaller software and computer companies need the 
protection of these already established laws. I am hoping you will 
overturn the settlement and break up the Microsoft monopoly.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Ingrid A. Hill
    Brighton, MA
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010136

From: Price Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this suit settled without further delay and 
litigation, if possible! From the beginning I have been against the 
government's suit against Microsoft. It is a sad commentary that a 
successful business in this country has to defend itself against our 
own government, in addition to meeting the competition. It is also 
insane! There are plenty of greedy lawyers out here to file suit to 
``protect us consumers'', if there is any reason-- check the number 
of rich lawyers resulting from ``Class Action Law Suits'' that got 
the ``consumers'' little or nothing, and quite often put a company 
out of business.
    The Justice Department suit has hurt me, a consumer, not helped 
me. The suit has hurt me, an investor, not helped me! The suit has 
hurt me, a taxpayer, not helped me! And, the suit has hurt me, a 
voter, not helped me. The suit has hurt employees, not just of 
Microsoft, but many other companies as well. The suit had the 
unexpected result that it hurt the competitors who were pushing for 
the government to sue. (I wouldn't feel bad about that, except it 
also hurt our entire economy!).
    I am really mad that we consumers/investors/taxpayers/voters/
employees/competitors, who have been hurt, also have to pay the bill 
for all this litigation. As usual, it is only the lawyers/law firms 
(and maybe some politicians) that benefit.
    Those who thought this suit was a good idea to start with, and 
those that want to continue the ligation probably think they are 
very smart. I think they prove themselves either greedy, or 
ingnorant-- maybe both!
    By all means, SETTLE!
    Price Rose
    Route 2, Box 1758,
    Eastland, TX 76448
    (254) 647-1473
    [email protected]
    CC:acu--list@capwiz.mailmanager.net@inetgw,ADF,david--k...



MTC-00010137

From: Rosanne Coxe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to tell you that I support the Bush Administration 
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. It has gone on 
way too long, isn't legitimate anyway, and is diverting Federal 
funds and wasting time as well as harming the technology market and 
consumers as well.
    Sincerely,
    Rosanne Partee
    California



MTC-00010138

From: jerome kavaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:38pm
Subject: The Micro-Soft litagation.
    Nuf Already;
    I support the President and Micro Softs desire to end this 
Lawsuit As a conservative taxpayer I want it ended.
    Jerome Kavaney



MTC-00010139

From: Thomas Weir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:41pm
Subject: tunney act
    Please support the Tunney Act. Nobody but the last 
administration wanted to sue Microsoft, the average person could 
care less. Out economy started going down hill when Microsoft was 
sued.!!
    Thomas Weir
    [email protected]



MTC-00010140

From: Barbara Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Enough is enough! I support the Bush administration & Microsoft 
in finally settling the ridiculous claims that have been put upon 
Bill Gates. What a waste of taxpayers money, to go after a law 
abiding, charity giving, altruistic, all American success story, who 
has EARNED every dollar he has made & given away.
    Since when do we live in a country where entreprenuarship is 
punished?
    Let's call the competitors ``cry babies'' & move on to the 
Federal Courts spending their time & money on someone or something 
that is truly harmful (rather than helpful) to this country!



MTC-00010141

From: Sara Scheele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to state that I wholeheartedly support the Bush 
Administration' efforts, along with Microsoft's efforts, to go ahead 
and settle this long-stretched out, expensive court case. Let's stop 
spending anymore of the taxpayers' (my) money, and settle this! The 
very people that are supposed to be protected by this case are now 
the ones being hurt due to the falling markets and bad press re. 
Microsoft. Thanks.
    Sara Scheele



MTC-00010142

From: gary miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Dear Dept of Justice:
    Even though I am a Microsoft shareholder, I would like to 
express my alarm at the weakness of the proposed antitrust 
settlement the Dept of Justice has reached with Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement does nothing to prevent further monopolistic 
practices by Microsoft, has a glaring gap that will allow Microsoft 
to deny access to Windows APIs to open source software developers 
(e.g., Linux), and does nothing to curb monopolistic expansion into 
newer technologies by Microsoft, just as it did in the browser 
marketplace.
    Microsoft's continued march to subsume new technologies (instant 
messaging, media players, e-commerce, etc) into Windows XP, its 
retention of the right to revert all OEM alternative desktop 
settings to Microsoft's own 14 days after purchase, and its 
continued refusal to admit any past misbehavior whatsoever all 
demonstrate that much stronger remedies are needed, and sooner 
rather than later.
    I am particularly concerned over the provision in the federal 
government's settlement agreement that requires Microsoft to divulge 
Windows APIs only to competitors that Microsoft determines have a 
``valid business plan''. Whether intended or not, one effect of this 
provision is to handicap the ``open source'' movement in ever 
inventing a rival technology that could work well enough with 
Windows to threaten Microsoft's own monopoly. Open source has 
hatched such technologies as the Linux OS and the latest 
incarnations of Netscape. Yet in their earliest stages, open source 
technologies rarely have a profitable business plan, so the 
settlement would not require Microsoft to share the APIs that would 
tell them how to make their applications run to best advantage on a 
Windows machine. Small wonder future Netscapes will appear clumsier 
than Explorer. Without API disclosure, Microsoft's technologies, 
whether inferior or not, come out of the gate with a prejudicial 
ability to integrate more smoothly with the Windows OS, and users 
will be discouraged from even trying alternative technologies. This 
element in the federal settlement nips any open source future rival 
in the bud.
    At the very minimum, a settlement should require that:
    (1) Microsoft sell an ``unbundled'' or bare-bones version of 
Windows, without bundled applications not essential to the operation 
of the computer, as requested by the nine states' attorneys general 
in their ongoing settlement hearing;
    (2) Microsoft reveal ALL Windows API so that competing 
developers can interact with the operation system efficiently, so 
that third parties could write an analog to, for example, the 
Passport technology that could work as well with Windows as 
Microsoft's version;
    (3) Internet Explorer source code should be made public;
    (4) Barring (3), Internet Explorer should conform to public 
standards in HTML, XML, Java, etc. Currently Microsoft has attempted 
to effectively proprietize public standards by incorporating its own 
nonstandard extension of them into the Windows OS and Internet 
Explorer, in effect mandating use of Internet Explorer to, e.g., 
decipher Microsoft nonstandard Java pages on the Web. If

[[Page 25262]]

Microsoft wishes to add its own extensions to public standards, it 
should do so as a browser plug-in only, and its extensions should 
also be provided as a plug-in for Netscape and other browsers as 
well, or else published.
    Even though I personally own Microsoft stock, I personally find 
Microsoft's past behavior so egregious--and so much unchanged even 
after the upheld findings of monopoly practices--that I am ashamed. 
I hope you will join the other state attorneys general in pursuing 
substantial damages, and, especially, injunctions NOW against any 
future such behavior by Microsoft. Surely without suitable 
injunctions, while the settlement process drags on, Microsoft will 
only further entrench its current monopoly.
    I only regret that Microsoft carries such influence in my own 
state (Washington) that my own attorney general has not joined the 
other states' case.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Miller
    1707 W 9th Ave
    Spokane WA 99204
    PS. I would normally write a ``real'' letter in hopes of 
carrying more weight, but understand that public safety concerns 
make email more reliable.
    ``The greatest obstacle to communication is the presumption it 
has already occurred.''



MTC-00010143

From: Bernard R. Blais MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:42pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
    I strongly recommend that the settlement be accepted. To much 
time and money has been spent in this legal battle which was not in 
the best interest of the public.
    Dr Bernard R Blais



MTC-00010144

From: Jason Rainbows
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Renata B. Hess,
    Please reconsider the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the 
current settlement is actually IN FAVOR of Microsoft, and will 
encourage that company to continue their monopolistic practices by 
handing them yet another market niche held by their competitors and 
it will irreversibly affect the education industry and other 
computer software developers.
    It will cost Microsoft a small percent of the settlement figure 
to supply their second-rate products to schools. And then, in six 
months the schools will have to PAY for the upgrades from Microsoft, 
and again every time a new upgrade is developed. It's money in the 
bank for them, to coin a phrase.
    This will place a huge monetary burden on our already destitute 
education industry. Not to mention the millions that schools will 
have to pay for support and repairs--a staple of all Microsoft 
programs. And it will essentially take away a market niche just 
barely held onto by their competitors due to Microsoft's brutal 
competitive habits.
    Microsoft develops poorly written programs that are easy for ANY 
12 year old computer user to hack into, and cause trouble in the 
form of Virus, Worms, Trojan Horses, etc. The Windows program is the 
most bug filled, virus infected program ever written. Costs to avoid 
or fix these problems will cost schools millions, and force our 
children to use software that simply doesn't do what it is made for, 
even in its most ideal configurations. The only ones to benefit from 
this is Microsoft. This trial has been used by Microsoft's lawyers 
to further its monopolistic positions. I don't know how they managed 
to turn this into their reward, but it seems that they've done it. 
If this settlement is allowed to happen in its current form, there 
will be no stopping Microsoft's monopoly and it will actually 
encourage their ominous business practices in the future.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Jason Rainbows
    jasonrainbows@mind spring.com
    http://www.mind spring.com/jasonrainbows
    ``littera scripta manet--non omnis moriar''



MTC-00010145

From: karsten koepcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This was a complete sell out. How could let them get away with 
their blatantly illegal behavior. Any you wonder why the people are 
cynical
    Karsten Koepcke



MTC-00010146

From: trish murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  9:55pm
Subject: Dear Judge,
    Dear Judge,
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft to settle this 
case as soon as possible; it is in publics' best interest as we will 
be far better served by settlement than ongoing litgation at a much 
higher cost. The consumer is always the one who suffers and in this 
case it is a double whammy; we must pay through taxes for the 
governments work then we pay more for the product because the 
company passes the cost on to the consumer by raising their prices 
to cover the litgation and it discourages other business ventures 
because they don't want the risk, maybe that's a triple whammy. 
Please settle it. Thank you.
    Tricia Murray



MTC-00010147

From: Carole Staebler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit.
    Howard & Carole Staebler
    915 Park Rim Cir.
    Anaheim, CA 92807



MTC-00010148

From: Frances Ellison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I support President Bush and Microsoft in their desire to settle 
this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Fran Ellison
    178 Palisades Dr
    Four Seasons, Mo 65049



MTC-00010149

From: Craig Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:28pm
Subject: Accept Ruling
    As a Washington State citizen and as a small business owner I 
request that you accept the ruling on the Microsoft case. This case 
has done irreparable harm to our economy both here in Washington and 
nation wide. The anti trust attack upon this innovative industry and 
against this innovative company is inappropriate. The target is 
moving so fast in the technology sector that old views and 
perspectives regarding antitrust do not apply.
    Please accept this ruling compromise so that we as a state and a 
nation can get back to business.
    Thank you,
    Craig Riley



MTC-00010150

From: Leonard (038) Agnes Tillerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    This is to inform you that we are in total agreement with the 
settlement reached regarding the Microsoft litigation.In our 
opinion, this litigation should have never occurred! Our economy has 
suffered as a result of this litigation and our technology market 
has been negatively impacted. In addition to the latter, we, the 
taxpayers have had to fund this prosecution diverting funds from 
investigating truly harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate 
monopolies. We ask and plead that the Federal District Court 
determine that the proposed settlement is in our, the public's, best 
interest.We applaud and support the Bush Administration and 
Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit.
    We respectfully request that you consider our remarks when 
making a final decision on this lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Agnes and Leonard Tillerson
    244 Osprey Circle
    St. Marys, Ga. 31558



MTC-00010151

From: John Olthoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I feel that I should have some voice. I think that the 
settlement with Microsoft is useless and needs to be much stricter. 
In some ways, as it is, it actually benefits the company.
    The company itself should be broken up and have restrictions 
placed on its monopoly. They inhibit progress and competition in 
technology.



MTC-00010152

From: Anne Ball
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25263]]

Date: 1/10/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. 
Please get the foot of government off the neck of private business 
so they can focus on moving this economy forward.
    Thank you,
    Anne Ball



MTC-00010153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:38pm
Subject: Bill Gates
    I don't fully understand why the antitrust suit was served to 
begin with. I've worked with computers for 20 years. Bill Gates is 
just a genius. Just because he and his company can create the BEST 
systems and software in the world, does not mean he has to be 
punished. I agree that it would help competition for software if the 
Windows Operating System was not limited to what can run on it. 
Also, I agree that he should not have ``forced'' those outside 
entities to only do business with Microsoft products. However, I 
have seen what running different software packages on a Windows OS 
can do to the system. It can limit functionability of the entire 
system and can cause system errors and shutdowns. I believe some 
changes need to be made in the market, but putting all the blame on 
Bill Gates for being the genius he is is not the answer.
    Thank you,
    Sheryl Bishop
    Louisiana



MTC-00010154

From: Jan Marler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to express my support for the settlement 
reached in November between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I 
believe this settlement is in the public interest and will allow 
everyone to move forward. In my opinion, this case should have never 
been started in the first place. But since that is water under the 
bridge, this settlement is the best result that can occur at this 
time. It requires significant changes and concessions from 
Microsoft, including changes in how the company designs future 
versions of its Windows operating system. And an oversight committee 
will be formed to assure compliance. Microsoft has been a good 
company for personal consumers like myself who have used their 
products for years. After this entire affair is finally completed, 
Microsoft will be able to focus all their resources to producing the 
products that consumers and businesses have come to expect for 
years. Thank you for this opportunity to give my opinion and I hope 
that no further action will be taken at the federal level on this 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Nolte Marler
    [email protected]
    2806 Hogan Lane
    Crestview, Florida 32539
    cc: Representative Joe Scarborough



MTC-00010155

From: John Malin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. The government 
has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of consumers; however, 
the very consumers it has sought to protect are being harmed by the 
detrimental impact the case has had on the technology market and the 
entire national economy.
    Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this 
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful 
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies. The proposed 
settlement encourages consumer product-choice, promotes product 
innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related computer and software 
manufacturers with confidence in marketing their own products. It 
also frees up Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust 
violations that currently harm the public. Some of the State 
Attorneys General want to continue this litigation: Don't let them! 
Let the case be settled as proposed and accepted by 9 of the 18 
State Attorneys General. I chose to only use some of the Microsoft 
products available plus products by other manufacturers and did it 
all with out a court hearing or judgement. I'm sure there are more 
pressing things to be handled by the court system, especially since 
we have so many vacancies on the Federal Benches.
    Sincerely,
    John Malin
    2242 Arabian Ln
    York, SC 29745
    803-684-9909
    [email protected]



MTC-00010156

From: Frank J. Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  10:59pm
    Accept this settlement and let this great corporation get back 
to what they do best.
    Frank Martin
    Allentown, PA



MTC-00010157

From: George von Wurmb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I like to state that I support the proposed settlement.It is 
time to settle this and move on.
    George von Wurmb,
    Tampa



MTC-00010158

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    All companys should have the FREEDOM TO INNOVATE. And that 
includes Microsoft. I really appreciate innovation regardless of who 
has the intelligence or the ability to do it.
    Karen E. Small.
    [email protected]



MTC-00010159

From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please get the government off Microsoft's back, & go catch the 
terrorists instead



MTC-00010160

From: Jacob J Barkman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings from Elkhart, Kansas. We are much in Prayer for you 
DAILY, that you will continually know how to deal with the multitude 
of decisions that continually come before you.
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement issue, I support the current 
proposed settlement of the consumer product choice that promotes 
product innovation.
    May you and your staff have the Wisdom, Discernment, and Insight 
to make the best, ultimate decision.
    Sincerely,
    Jacob J. Barkman
    P. O. Box 193
    Elkhart, Kansas 67950



MTC-00010161

From: Bruce Molay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge for Microsoft Case
From: Bruce Molay, US Citizen
    Re: Regarding Microsoft Settlement/Case
    My Background: I am writing as a user of computer systems, a 
professional programmer, and an instructor in computer science. I 
began writing computer programs in 1968, I began writing programs 
professionally in 1983, and have been teaching computer science 
since 1976. I have seen the changes in computer technology and in 
the computer industry for three decades. I have also experienced 
firsthand Microsoft's deceptive business practices.
    Regarding a Settlement: Microsoft walked all over the intention 
of the earlier consent decree, Microsoft has stomped on competitors 
and stabbed `partners' in the back. Evidence at the trial showed 
many times a blatant disregard for truth. The doctored video tape 
had to be a form of perjury. Given the company's history, there is 
reason to believe Microsoft would ever follow the terms of another 
agreement.
    In fact, as professional coders, they would take as a challenge 
the project of figuring out a clever way to work within the letter 
of the agreement while utterly violating the spirit of the 
agreement. Clever programmers take binary codes designed to do one 
thing and play with the rules to get computers to do something else. 
Legal agreements are just another game for Bill Gates to hack.

[[Page 25264]]

    Finally, a settlement saves the company from having to accept or 
admit guilt. A settlement ignores the fact that a federal judge and 
the appeals court were unanimous, in detailed, unambiguous, direct 
rulings, about the clear violations of anti-trust law. A settlement 
allows Microsoft to pretend it was all a misunderstanding, something 
that can be settled amicably between parties trying to compromise.
    Convicted Criminals Deserve Punishment: Microsoft has 
demonstrably damaged competition and free enterprise. Microsoft has 
benefitted enormously from lack of competition. In short, they 
killed the competition and stole money from consumers. Even if they 
promise never to kill competition and never to steal again, they 
ought not to keep of their ill-gotten gains.
    I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if a bank robber is 
convicted of a robbery, and then promises to stop robbing banks, and 
gets no jail time, we at least expect him to give the money back. Or 
maybe pay out as a fine.
    Convicted Criminals and Weapons: I think we require background 
checks when people try to buy guns. People convicted of using guns 
to hurt people and property should not be trusted to carry them 
around, or at least deserve some real supervision.
    Microsoft used their desktop monopoly and their proprietary file 
formats and APIs to prevent and destroy competition in many areas. 
As we speak, they are adding APIs and changing file formats and 
using the desktop monopoly to attack Real Networks, Kodak, and even 
universal email protocols that make the Internet so useful to 
millions. Microsoft still possesses these weapons and is still using 
them.
    Take away their weapons. Force MS to publish all file formats 
and windows APIs. They do not have to publish their source code; 
most of us in the industry do not want to look at Microsoft's `crown 
jewels', there is too large a risk of intellectual property 
lawsuits. Impose hefty fines and the threat of a break up if they 
violate the rules. Arrange to pay bounties to people who find 
undocumented or incorrectly formats and APIs. Pay those bounties, 
upon review by a truly independent board, directly from MS to that 
coder. Doing so will make MS think twice about the cost of each 
violation. Doing so will create a staff of highly skilled 
inspectors, something the federal government can ill afford to fund 
in these economic times. Offering rewards for information about a 
crime is has a long tradition in our legal system.
    Summary: No Settlement They have broken laws, hurt people, 
businesses, and stayed the invisible hand of the market. Fine them, 
don't trust them, and please take away their guns.



MTC-00010162

From: Frank Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:06pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
    I think the agreement that the Department of Justice, several 
states, and Microsoft is in the public interest and that the matter 
should be settled.
    Frank Martin
    P.O. Box 8586
    Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657
    830-598-6823



MTC-00010163

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:26pm
Subject: OBJECTION TO THE PERSECUTION OF BILL GATES
    DROP THE PERSECUTION NOW.



MTC-00010164

From: Shawn Jarrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe key aspects of the government's case are wrong.
    In my opinion Microsoft does not hold an ``illegal'' monopoly 
over desktop operating systems. That ignores the resurgent of Apple 
Macintosh and the emergence of powerful Unix-based competitors, like 
Linux. Consumers can purchase any operating system they want, but 
they choose Microsoft because it is a better product.
    There is no evidence of consumer harm and none was provide in 
the trial and Microsoft, according to the law, is not a Monopoly. 
Instead we, the consumer, had a judge that made up laws as he 
pleased.
    After reading into the definition of a Monopoly, this is my 
understanding what it is: A monopoly is a firm that's restricts 
output in order to raise profits and prices, which harm consumers. 
Microsoft stands accused of doing the exact opposite; it lowers its 
price to zero and tries to expand its market.
    The more one knows about this industry, the more one will 
realize it was the disgruntled competitors bringing the charge that 
Microsoft is a monopoly.
    All this, is a legal sideshow. Sun, IBM, AOL, and Oracle are 
touting it as the central issue, but they don't give a damn about 
the consumers. With Windows 2000/XP Microsoft is invading their turf 
on the corporate side with better products at lower prices. They 
want the government to make the software design decisions for 
Microsoft, knowing that will stop Microsoft from innovating. This 
will be bad for consumers, the economy and the national security if 
we fall behind in computer technology due to government meddling.
    There is no possible way any action against Microsoft by the 
Justice Department and more importantly the unsettled states will 
help consumers. The competition and innovation in the computer and 
software industries are the most intense in the history of the 
world.
    Overall, the message being sent by the trial is ``If you are a 
dominant producer in your market, be careful how aggressively you 
compete. Be mindful that your rivals can haul you into court if your 
product is better than theirs''.
    To be perfectly clear, the DOJ and the Attorney Generals of the 
suing states do not represent my interest and the interest of 
millions of consumers who have and will continue to benefit from 
Microsoft products.
    Sincerely from a concerned consumer,
    T. Shawn Jarrett
    704-393-9828
    [email protected]



MTC-00010165

From: Mino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:40pm
Subject: Law Suits Against Microsoft:
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    The Department of Justice, Microsoft and nine of eighteen states 
have reached an agreement that will stop wasting taxpayers' money on 
the decade-long competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft. The 
government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of consumers; 
however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are being 
harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the technology 
market and the entire national economy.
    Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this 
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful 
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
    The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice, 
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related 
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing 
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources 
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
    Some of the State Attorneys General want to continue this 
litigation:
    Don't let them!
    The Federal District Court must determine that the proposed 
settlement is in the public's interest. Let the Court know that you 
support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to 
settle this lawsuit.
    Thank You for taking the time to read my email to you. May God 
Almighty Bless You with Wisdom and Discernement in all that you deal 
with as
    Attorney General.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Ronald Shimono
    Issaquah, WA 98027



MTC-00010166

From: Lucille Patrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit now.
    Thank You
    (Mrs.) Lucille C. Patrick



MTC-00010167

From: Eric Knirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    leave microsoft alone. go after eron, or better yet loral 
aerospace for transfering protected technology to china.



MTC-00010168

From: Eric Knirk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02  11:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement

[[Page 25265]]

    leave microsoft alone. go after ERON or better yet LORAL for 
transfering technology to to CHINA.



MTC-00010169

From: Carol Radford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02  10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Carol Radford
    PO Box 471
    Blomington, CA 92316
    January 10, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Radford



MTC-00010170

From: Ron C Gunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My little company has been harmed by Microsoft, but I can only 
imagine one entity that can make a worse mess of the delicate job of 
providing software necessary for our best chance of technological 
and social progress, and that is any of the arms of the U.S. Federal 
Government.
    Microsoft is by far the least harmful entity in this fight over 
Governmental or Business control of this sensitive area, and 
attempts to make this situation better through governmental control, 
because of its dynamic nature, is doomed to the most dismal failure.
    Ron Gunn;
    Ron Gunn Enterprises;
    358 Albatross Ave;
    Livermore CA 94550



MTC-00010171

From: Dave C. Hill
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected],senator--leahy@le...
Date: 1/11/02  12:05am
Subject: Isn't this ``Extra Special'' ????
    How much more are you going to allow/``Look-The-Other-Way'' 
before you deal with Microsoft like Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson 
correctly wanted to and order to split up of Microsoft ?? This 
company continues to make a mockery of the Justice system and anti-
trust laws of this country!
    Every time they get a chance, they're taking unfair advantage or 
``Muscling'' some company or the Justice Department itself !!!
    Prosecute these clowns and quit screwing around with them !!!
    Microsoft failed to disclose meetings with lawmakers
    WASHINGTON (AP) ? Microsoft communicated with members of 
Congress and their aides about its antitrust case and did not 
disclose the contacts to the trial judge who requested information 
about the company's lobbying in the case. Microsoft said this week 
it decided to disclose only contacts with executive branch officials 
in the required court filings, following the example of AT&T when it 
settled its landmark antitrust case in the 1980s.
    The company reported to the court that its lone contacts with 
federal employees included Justice lawyers and two federal mediators 
hired to help assist settlement talks.
    Legal experts, however, questioned whether the omission of 
congressional contacts violated federal law.
    ``If you specifically talk about the proposed settlement, that 
would seem to fall under the requirements of the plain language of 
the statute,'' said lawyer Dana Hayter with the firm of Howard Rice 
in San Francisco.
    Both Microsoft and a congressional aide who witnessed the 
contacts acknowledge Microsoft officials briefed aides of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on terms of the settlement just before a 
December congressional hearing on the case.
    The Tunney Act requires defendants in antitrust cases such as 
Microsoft's to disclose ``any and all written or oral 
communications'' with ``any officer or employee of the United 
States'' related to the settlement.
    In other cases not involving antitrust, judges have ruled that a 
legislator or congressional staff member counts as a U.S. employee.
    Before the law named after him was passed, former Sen. John 
Tunney, D-Calif., said its requirements ``apply equally to contact 
with any branch of government, including the Congress.''
    In its twice-a-year reports to Congress on lobbying activities, 
Microsoft reported spending $300,000 on lobbying in the first half 
of 2001 related to the antitrust case.
    Several aides of lawmakers acknowledged discussing the 
settlement negotiations with Microsoft representatives.
    An aide to Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., talked with Microsoft 
officials in September, as settlement discussions renewed.
    During the same month, Dunn organized over a hundred lawmakers 
to sign a letter to the Justice Department and Microsoft Chief 
Executive Officer Steve Ballmer urging a settlement.
    The lawmaker's staff called company executives for advice about 
appearing on a television show focusing on the case. ``We just had 
to call Microsoft so we could understand better what the issue 
was,'' spokeswoman Jen Burita said.
    Also in September, after federal prosecutors decided to abandon 
their effort to break Microsoft into two companies, Dunn talked to 
Attorney General John Ashcroft and urged an ``expedient resolution 
that will benefit consumers.''
    Microsoft lobbyist Jack Quinn last year wrote to Senate 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., seeking to 
persuade him to scuttle the December hearing because the company was 
concerned that they would ``promote the biases'' of Microsoft 
competitors.
    Legal experts said congressional contacts about the settlement 
should have been mentioned in Microsoft's disclosure and that 
Microsoft could risk its credibility by interpreting the law too 
narrowly.
    ``Once a side loses credibility, then you start to question 
everything they say,'' said Bob Lande, a law professor at the 
University of Baltimore.
    Lande said the trial judge could force Microsoft to resubmit its 
disclosure if she doesn't believe it is complete.
    Other experts said the law was designed to widely include 
contacts so the public could best decide whether companies tried to 
improperly exert influence to win an antitrust settlement.
    ``The reason to have the broad language is making sure the 
disclosure errs on the side of inclusiveness,'' said Andy Gavil, an 
antitrust expert at Howard University. ``It's for the court and the 
public to decide whether there was improper influence, and not for 
Microsoft.''
    In its disclosure to the court, Microsoft acknowledged speaking 
only with U.S. government lawyers, lawyers for the states suing the 
company, and two court-appointed mediators.
    Microsoft spokesman Vivek Varma said the company's disclosure 
was modeled on AT&T's antitrust suit that resulted in a 1984 breakup 
of the telephone giant.
    ``That filing was limited to communications with the executive 
branch,'' Varma said.
    The Justice Department and 18 states sued Microsoft four years 
ago, alleging it violated antitrust laws and illegally thwarted 
competition.
    The original trial judge ruled Microsoft did, in fact, operate 
as an illegal monopoly and should be broken into two companies as 
punishment.
    Microsoft appealed.
    A federal appeals court upheld most of the findings but reversed 
the breakup and ordered that a new judge impose a new penalty.
    Microsoft late last year reached a settlement with the Justice 
Department and nine of the states. Nine other states are proceeding 
with the case and plan to go to trial on the penalty issue.
    ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well
    or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,

[[Page 25266]]

    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 [email protected]> :-)



MTC-00010172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:09am
Subject: microsoft
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    Mahlon and Doreen Wixson
    PO Box 3098
    Silverdale, WA 98383



MTC-00010173

From: Schmidt, Jeff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  12:10am
Subject: Sentencing of Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I would like to make a few comments regarding the possible 
sentence being brought about against Microsoft. This possible 
sentence is letting Microsoft off with barely a slap on the wrist. 
In doing so, you are sending a signal to Microsoft that monopolies 
are fine as long as you're big enough. This is enabling them to keep 
their strangle-hold on the computer users of the world and stifling 
the competition in the computer operating system market. This lack 
of competition has yeilded low quality, over prices products on the 
part of Microsoft. Their Windows operating system has deteriorated 
over the years to being a poorly ``slapped together'' product.
    The number of security leaks has increased dramatically. This is 
making the lives of people more vulnerable to criminals. How are we 
to feel safe shopping online. What about our personal information, 
and the safety of our families. I don't know who may be seeing my 
personal information. I don't know who may be talking to my family 
members. All of this is because of Microsoft's ``get it out there, 
and we'll fix the problems when they arise'' attitude. And where 
does this attitude come from? From the fact that they know that they 
don't have to worry about the competition of other operating 
systems. I realize that Linux has grasped a decent, although still 
less respectable, peice of the server market, but that still doesn't 
cover the home user and their information. If Microsoft is let off 
with a light sentence, they will continue to release poorly put 
together, unsecure operating systems. And because of their current 
market share, they are able to drag the public down any road, safe 
or unsafe, they want. Please, do not let Microsoft continue to be 
incontrol of the lives of computer users. They seem to have proven 
they are not trust worthy to make a quality, secure product. Thank 
you.
    Jeff Schmidt
    Former Windows user, recently switched to Linux.



MTC-00010174

From: Vincent Adeszko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to stop wasting taxpayer money and inhibiting 
successful entrepreneurs. If it wasn't for Microsoft, I and 
thousands of others would still be frightened of computers. When 
will the government and the courts recognize the huge benefits to 
worker productivity and consumer satisfaction that Microsoft has 
given to the world and to its stockholders. It has been one of the 
best, if not the best, innovator in technology. Settle these 
ridiculous lawsuits and allow business to continue to expand worker 
opportunities in this country and all over the world.
    Vincent Adeszko
    144 Canyon RIm Drive
    Folsom, CA 95630



MTC-00010175

From: Jim Kneuper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:41am
Subject: Concerned Linux user
    Hello! I'm writing to you because I believe the proposed 
settlement is a slap on the wrist for Microsoft and a kick in the 
face to everyone else. Even now, they are still doing the things 
there were dragged into court for. Notice MSN Messanger in Windows 
XP? Or the Passport buggings?
    I use Linux as my primary operating system. I actually do have a 
small (3 gigs of a 60 gig hard drive) Windows partition for the game 
EverQuest, which refuses to support Linux. That's the only 
problem... no companies have any compelling reason to support any 
operating system other than Windows. Untill support comes around, 
nobody is going to move to Linux or any other operating system.
    Microsoft is doing everything it can to stop that. Take for 
instance the lack of Java support in Windows XP. They want web pages 
to use their own language, ``ActiveX'', because they are the only 
ones who are able to write support for it. No browser can 
interperate ActiveX other than Internet Explorer. And Internet 
Explorer only happends on Windows (and maybe Mac, not sure). If web 
pages want to work with Windows XP, they have no choice but to break 
compatibility with other OSs.
    Microsoft has contenued to show that it cannot be trusted, again 
and again. It gives this great nation a bad name, and that is the 
truly sad part. Please, do not let the war on Terrorism be 
Microsoft's ``get out of jail free'' card... because, arguably, the 
war on Terrorism should include Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time
    Jim Kneuper

[[Page 25267]]



MTC-00010176

From: Charlie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:20am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    It is time to settle this thing once and for all. I think the 
taxpayer has spent enough on this somewhat frivolous lawsuit. 
Everyone has been kept in suspense long enough, and it is not good 
for the country at this point in time.
    Sincerely,
    Charles W. Powers
    Cape Girardeau, Mo 63703
    [email protected].



MTC-00010177

From: Dave Winchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe Microsoft has been persecuted enough by the anti-trust 
prosecution of recent years. The settlement agreement reached by 
Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice, and 9 of the 18 states 
participating on the suit seems to be in the public interest, and 
should be approved by the court. The prosecution of Microsoft was 
driven by competitors envious of Microsoft's commercial success, and 
by overzealous U.S. attorneys. It has been a waste of taxpayers' 
money and has diverted DOJ resources away from other important 
issues. The case should be closed to stop the waste of public and 
commercial money and resources. The nine participating states that 
have not yet agreed to the settlement should not be allowed to 
impede the settlement and thus perpetuate the wasteful activity to 
the detriment of Microsoft's continuing commercial achievements and 
the public good. Please pass my support of the proposed settlement 
of the lawsuit to the court for its consideration.
    Very truly yours,
    David G. Winchell
    8871 W. Etcheverry Drive
    Tracy, California 95304



MTC-00010178

From: John Bowen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:42am
Subject: Bunch of Crooks
    This has gone far enough! This is nothing but a bunch of Pirates 
who knew about computers before the government did and used their 
advantage to take the money and stifle software development!
    They sell buggy software and provide no refund if it will not 
work and no customer service! I have their Millennium Edition and it 
has never worked. I'm sure I could spend about 20 hours and get it 
to work but why should I have to work on something I bought on good 
faith that it would work. If you want to understand how this company 
operates Look into Millennium edition. They put this OS out just for 
a payday to keep the stock from crashing and to hell with whoever 
bought it!!!!



MTC-00010179

From: Paul Geohegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlemet
    Enough already!



MTC-00010180

From: Stephen Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed federal 
penalties against the Microsoft corporation are too lenient and set 
a bad precedent.
    I find it incredible that the court, the prosecution, and the 
guilty party must negotiate as equals to define a settlement 
agreeable to all parties in this case. Microsoft was found guilty of 
breaking an important law. They have significantly hurt millions of 
Americans. How many other guilty parties get to negotiate their 
punishment? It sure seems like Microsoft is not being treated 
equally under the law. Some aspects of the penalty are not penalties 
at all. Forcing Microsoft to buy software and computers for schools 
gives them an advantage in the educational market, where competitors 
(e.g., Apple Computer and the suppliers of compatible software) have 
long had a substantial fraction of the market. The one market where 
Microsoft has faced significant competition is being made less 
competitive. Is this a penalty for anti-competitive behavior?
    Microsoft has a well-earned reputation for lying, including 
orchestrating public support for its products in dishonest ways. A 
ZDNET pole over Christmas is only the most recent example. http://
news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html Microsoft 
consistently engages in questionable behavior and is not entitled to 
leniency on the ground of any honorable track record. If they are 
not punished, we will have to endure years more of the same or 
worse. The worst they have to fear is another long trial, with minor 
penalties even if they are found guilty!
    Stephen C. Langford
    160 NW Stadium Way, Apt. 4
    Pullman, WA 99163-2461
    Phone: (509) 332-5844
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00010181

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:14am
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    please support the settlement for the sake of all concerned



MTC-00010183

From: Bradley Curtis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it and get off the stick
    B. L. Curtis



MTC-00010184

From: Tom and Karin Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Here we are dealing with a recession that started in 2000, and 
the government tortures a company that has created industry, jobs, 
wealth, and progress. And they have done it because they have good 
ideas and know how to make them into products. Now does it make any 
sense at all to punish them for being successful? Stop wasting our 
time and money on this vendetta and end this case. Do not fall 
victim to the anti-business forces that drag success to the ground.
    Tom and Karin Thomas
    12711 Via Perfecto
    San Antonio, TX 78233
    (210)655-6855



MTC-00010185

From: Diane Kirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Diane Kirk
    2350 Pinon Rd.
    Rescue, CA 95672-9651
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Diane Kirk



MTC-00010186

From: Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:09am
Subject: Why should MS get a slap on the wrist???
    Thank you for reading this.
    Please do not let MS off the hook, we need to force them to 
better their product by promoting competition. The have an unfair 
and in my opinion an illegal monopoly.
    Wasn't the phone company dismantled because of unfair business 
practice due to it's monopoly? Of course it was.
    The other thing that has really changed my views on MS was when 
I purchased WinXP... I had some trouble installing this software to

[[Page 25268]]

``MY'' satisfaction. I did not realize that each time I installed 
the software (which I paid for) I had to send off to MS an 
electronic registration with an electronic profile of ``MY'' 
machine. Well fine I did it (reluctantly), but what else am I going 
to use... So I install this OS, and registerd it 3 times. I was 
still unhappy with something about the install, and after much work 
decided I would erase my system one last time, and reinstall this 
OS. So after I am done I try to register to Mr. Bill, and I get a 
message telling me that the software I paid for has been installed 
too many times. To make a long story short, I had to call MS to ask 
permission to use it and get a special code to activate something I 
paid for!!! Keep in mind I had done the activation prior, but that 
wasn't good enough.
    Now correct my if I am out of line here, but if you bought 
software... Do you think that you should have to ask the companies 
permission, and further have to supply them with a reason as to why 
I am installing it so many times? Didn't I buy it for my personal 
use? It was from the same machine because they had my hard 
profile...
    Please sanction this company in a way that will make it hurt. 
PLEASE!! don't give in to these thugs. They are no worse than the 
Mafia.
    Thank you,
    Steve DeDominic



MTC-00010187

From: lscross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department: Stop wasting taxpayers' money on the 
decade-long competitor-driven persecution of Microsoft.
    This settlement is not in the public interest.
    The government has ostensibly pursued this case on behalf of 
consumers; however, the very consumers it has sought to protect are 
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the 
technology market and the entire national economy.
    Furthermore, America's taxpayers have had to fund this 
prosecution, diverting government funds from investigating harmful 
antitrust violations and illegitimate monopolies.
    The proposed settlement encourages consumer product-choice, 
promotes product innovation, and provides non-Microsoft related 
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing 
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources 
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public. Stop 
this litigation!
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit.
    Luci Cross
    Olympia, WA 98513



MTC-00010188

From: Dave Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    In reading over the final settlement with Microsoft, maybe I am 
not seeing something, but what I see allows for something that I 
find happening to allow Microsoft to continue with an almost akin to 
an absolute control of the internet. Ever since Microsoft lost their 
battle in Court, they have been making some changes which tend to 
further their path to discouraging people enough that they gain more 
control and thereby a monopoly by a type of intimidation. I have 
watched them in their influence over the net by any users who are 
not using their products when on the web. An example of this is that 
every site they own or control or every company or OEM with which 
they have some previous agreement can't be simply accessed by one 
who is not using their product. I see nothing in the final judgement 
which prohibits them from intimidation by making it almost 
impossible for anyone who does not use their IE to easily access 
mail or sites. Since there is not and since they have acquired more 
online, they have now been able to exercise much more in the way of 
'convincing' people to use only them. This effectively shuts out 
most of the stipulations of the final judgement. The giving up of 
fighting with a system which is so restrictive and demanding without 
violating any of the provisions of the judgement will merely cause 
the individuals to chose to not fight it and add much more to a 
total control monopoly on the internet.
    One only has to understand that the Microsoft Windows OS is the 
one in use in the majority of all OS systems used in the world to 
realize that the internet is being used to force a control so that a 
true free choice is not given to the individual users. The 
complaints which caused this suit were not from individual users. 
They were from competitors in the business. No where is the issue 
addressed which prevents Microsoft from using the widespread use of 
their OS along with their own internet sites and agreements with 
others to cause considerable pressure to continue with a forced 
monopoly. With what I see in the judgement, even more a path is 
allowed for them to continue to accomplish an almost total internet 
controled monopoly with their OS and products.
    The users of an Operating System do not always run out and pay 
such an expense just to buy new systems when they are introduced. 
Many will continue to use what they have until they find a real need 
due to some obsolecesence. With all the Windows programs since 
Windows 95 to date, there is no way to avoid the requirement of 
wasting space on the system by keeping the Microsoft Internet 
Explorer (IE). It must be in the system and will always be doing 
something itself and including popping up at times when you are not 
wanting to use it.
    In any site owned, controlled or where there exists an agreement 
for the use of their products, a user of any other system or browser 
has difficulty in accessing the site. In mail that is sent which has 
been set up by Microsoft for many companies, that mail may not even 
open in any browser other than IE. I have had many such examples 
here recently which did not exist before your suit. This would tend 
to indicate a path Microsoft has found to allow for a continuation 
of what the suit was charging, only from a different perspective; 
the use.
    Where I prefer the Windows system, I do not prefer all that 
Microsoft has for use and see no need to have it waste space on my 
hard drive when I have other products which I would chose to use. I 
do not think that Microsoft should be allowed to have the type of 
control worldwide they have over the internet to force this 
situation and I do not think that they should be allowed to provide 
their IE as a component of the Windows OS. This should be kept out 
of the system and a user then has the free choice of which they wish 
to download or purchase and use. Any online company or site, network 
or ISP should be additionally required to fully support any of the 
available browser systems available to the individual user by the 
choice of the user.
    Take a look back at how the Windows sysetem was prior to Windows 
95. You will find a system which did allow free choice. The IE could 
be used or eliminated at the discretion of the user. Now, the 
Windows Operating System is so embedded with instructions and 
directions so as to disallow any free choice in any product which 
Microsoft owns or controls. You must keep all of theirs and then 
have to fight with sites and anything which on the web is under the 
direction, control or ownership of Microsoft if you are not using 
their products. It has become common now for people to even state 
that if you aren't using IE or Microsoft that you aren't going to be 
able to enter the site, gain access to some mail or view anything 
produced on the internet by Microsoft. This is quite a bad sign.
    I know that is is rather a far fetched idea, but I feel the urge 
to remind all of a movie that was shown on television a couple years 
back and can now be found in video stores. It is fiction. It isn't 
real. But, I see a tremendous similarity to it and what I see 
happening now. A bit more advanced and overboard situation in the 
movie, but is it? ``Net Force'' Watch it and you be the judge.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Jacobs



MTC-00010189

From: bill mccauley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:12am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I Thought the feds covered interstate commerce.
    tell them money grubing states to back off
    Bill McCauley
    Plano, Texas



MTC-00010190

From: Ira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of the Windows Operating System I want to support 
Microsoft(MS) for the products they have developed. I have no 
interest in the marketing aspects or the policies of any company but 
rather the benefits of the software. If politicians who are not even 
aware of the real benefits of the software are allowed to continue 
to disrupt the development of such software future development will 
cease. How can people who are not technically aware of the real

[[Page 25269]]

technical problems that are involved in development be allowed to 
decide to dictate the future of the industry. The government 
``Experts'' are bureaucrats with a vested interest in controlling 
private industry and not really capable of making true technical 
contributions to software products. Why don't the courts look to 
individuals like myself--not employees of MS or the government but 
users of the products. The industry would not have grown and 
flourished if not for MS so stop trying to stifle it. 
[email protected] ``Your living proof that God works in strange 
and wondrous ways'' SuzieQ,Little Bit and Ira



MTC-00010191

From: Wayne Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 10, 2002 Attorney General John 
Ashcroft 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW US Department of Justice 
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I would like to take a moment to give my views on the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department in November. At 
this point, the settlement agreement is the best development and 
would be good for all litigants and consumers in general.
    I, like countless others, have Microsoft stock as a significant 
part of my retirement savings. The impact of the suit on me 
personally has been dramatic. The impact on the entire economy is 
noteworthy, too. In fact, I think one can trace the Clinton 
recession almost directly to the date of the original judgment.
    Despite my belief that this whole case should have never been 
brought in the first place, I understand Microsoft's desire to wrap 
this suit up. Now I am hoping that with the federal government's 
lead and continued support for the settlement, the states that have 
not joined the settlement (such as Minnesota) will reconsider their 
position. It would be extremely important for all this legal 
uncertainty to be put to rest for good. The settlement justly leaves 
Microsoft intact, while obligating the company to change its 
anticompetitive practices of software bundling and the way it 
licensed Windows.
    I commend your office and the entire administration on the push 
to settle this case. It is good for the economy and for the 
government, who can now utilize scarce resources to programs that 
are more important in our current political environment.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Petersen



MTC-00010192

From: bernita colthorp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:01am
Subject: Litigation with microsoft.
    Sirs:
    It is in the best interest of the United States economy to close 
this case against Microsoft, and allow them and the rest of the 
country to get on with business, and stop wasting money and time on 
making life miserable for producers of the means to keep our country 
strong--the courts could better use their time and money on other 
matters--online porn, money laundering by fringe groups.
    Sincerely,
    Bernita Colthorp



MTC-00010193

From: Jerry (038) Mary Fields
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the government should settle with Microsoft 
quickly and then leave it alone. Please don't cripple the industry 
or spend any more of our tax money by prolonging this suit, nor by 
starting other similar ones. Many people in this field are out of 
jobs. The computer/technological industry needs stimulation and tax 
breaks to put Americans back to work.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Mary Fields
    820 Carter Rd
    Mineral Wells, TX 76067



MTC-00010194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:32am
Subject: Please listen to the public
    I am going to try and keep this as short as I can, it may be 
hard because this is a issue that I am very passionate about.
    I am a computer science student at Iowa State University, I have 
developed software for many years now on a variety of platforms 
including, Windows and many different types of Unix and Linux 
operating systems. I have also had the pleasure of maintaining these 
systems. My knowledge and experience is nothing special, I am just 
like hundreds of thousands of people that work on keeping our 
systems as secure as we can.
    I could write you many pages about problems with the current 
state of the computer industry and how that relates to the Microsoft 
Corporation. But I am not going to do that. I am going to tell you 
about some of the issues that I think are prevalent to not only 
system administrators but to every computer user.
    With the increasing amount of sensitive information that is on 
computers today security is a major issue. Some people, including 
some of my closest friends, are unable to see this. This is probably 
one of the biggest problems that we face as a computer dependent 
society. They are uneducated about the risks they take every time 
they use a computer. Most people would probably just try and say 
that I am paranoid, however the truth is that my education and 
experiences is what makes me look paranoid but the risks I talk 
about are real.
    So what does this have to do with Microsoft. The answer to that 
question is very long, there are more security holes in Microsoft's 
software than I can keep track of, which is why I will only focus on 
those that affect the most users.
    I know of these holes not because I am a hacker of any kind but 
because I have to fix them in order to maintain the least bit of 
security.
    This nation spends millions of dollars every year on Microsoft's 
software, to then turn around and spend millions more to fix the 
damage incurred because of a virus that it spread. Everyone is 
familiar with email viruses, most people have received one and have 
been infected by it, if they haven't just keep using Outlook and 
wait a while. This method of putting viruses in emails costs this 
nation more every year than anyone wants to think about. I don't 
know the numbers and I don't think anyone truly does know them, 
because fixing the problem costs a lot of time and money but so does 
trying to prevent the problem.
    In how many other industries can a company get away with selling 
a product that puts the buyer in danger without informing them about 
it. When you purchase Microsoft software do they tell you about all 
the security holes in it and how what damage they can do? Of course 
they can't predict what tools a hacker will use but once a problem 
is found a solution needs to be found. This is something that 
Microsoft is not very diligent at doing. But who can blame them for 
not wanting to publish this information, after all if they did how 
many people do you think would spend $300 for the upgrade version of 
there next software, which fixed some problems but made just as many 
new ones. Well I will tell you who can blame them, everyone, 
starting with yourself. If I had a car and the manufacture knew that 
it could explode if someone kicked and they didn't tell me about it, 
they would be sued to no end. Many people say that this comparison 
is outrageous, but it is not, this is just how unsafe there software 
is. The reason people believe this is because that is what Microsoft 
wants you to believe and what they sell you in every ad that they 
have. Really, a company that big can sell the general public 
anything it wants.
    But now for some proof.
    The computer industry had its ways of making standards just like 
every other industry. Most of the time those standards are set by a 
non-profit organization, like IEEE. But because Microsoft is so huge 
and controls most of the market they don't feel like they have to 
follow the rules. Right now they can create whatever standard they 
want and because they sell so many systems it becomes a standard. 
But the problem is that there is nothing standard about it. 
Standards are published and available to the public, something that 
Microsoft also does not do. Take the HTML standard, or HyperText 
Markup Language. There browser, Internet Explorer has its own 
standards that if follows, sure it follows all of the real standards 
but it has included other things are are not standard, I do not know 
what they are because they will not tell me. But what I do know is 
that the computer I am currently sitting at right now has a problem 
with it. I am using a Silicon Graphics Indigo 2 R10000 machine 
running a version of Unix and using Netscape Navigator as my 
browser. When trying to view pages on Microsoft's own web site it 
will not display the content. But when I go to my Windows machine it 
does not have a problem at all. But the problem is not me, the 
problem is the site, I am convinced that it will not display the 
content when using Netscape.
    Microsoft will call this a coincidence or a problem with 
Netscape, but the problem is

[[Page 25270]]

with Microsoft and that they have enough power to make it the truth!
    This is a situation that needs to stop and this is the time to 
do it. We have an opportunity here to stop something that should 
have been stooped long ago. I don't care what Microsoft says is best 
for our nation. It boils down to what is best for Microsoft, if you 
think they care about what is best for this nation you should 
consider yourself one of there victims. A company does not get as 
large as they are by caring about anyone but themselves.
    Freedom of information is a wonderful thing, and that is what 
makes the internet one of the most powerful tools today. I should 
not have to remind you of what freedom is, but I will say this, the 
longer Microsoft pushes on its current path the less free the 
internet will become. A judge would say that is speculation but I 
don't care, I want it to me motivation, motivation to do the right 
thing and just think about where we will be in ten years. Microsoft 
will never own the internet, at least I hope not, but if we are not 
careful they will control it.
    Think of it as a kind of conspiracy, the amount of information 
you have is almost nothing when you know the truth. I can not prove 
that is the case here but there are millions of us out here that can 
feel it. I thank you very much for your time, I did not accomplish 
my goal of a short letter and if you have made it this far I know 
that you will do the right thing and put and end to this situation 
and open up a new and better door to the future.
    I leave you with this. Microsoft is huge but programers around 
the world is much bigger. The progress of open source software has 
grown so much in the last few years and I believe me that it is just 
the tip of the iceberg. The future of computing lies in our hands 
and not Microsoft, but if we are not careful that can change.
    Thanks again,
    Ryan Grimm
    1232 Hawthron Court
    Iowa State University
    Ames IA, 50010



MTC-00010195

From: ANDERSON,MIKE (HP-USA,ex1)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I strongly support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in 
their desire to settle this lawsuit. Close this case and get the 
states off Microsoft's back.
    I believe that the Govt has totally missed their target in this 
case. By having a standard Operating System, innovation as been 
significantly increased and software costs decreased. E.G. if every 
auto manufacturer's vehicles ran on a different fuel source, the 
cost of fuel would be much higher. Same principal for software. 
Without Microsofts innovations, our countries technological lead 
would not exist...in my opinion.
    Regards :-) 
    Mike Anderson / IT Technical Staff
    Field Support Tools/Integration & Development
    HP Services North America Information Technology
    Phone: 770/T-795-6488 (urgent voice msg pages)
    After 3 rings, home office & cell phone ring simultaneously.
    Email: [email protected]
    The doorstep of the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of your 
own ignorance. 



MTC-00010196

From: Jeff Clayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:40am
Subject: Against Proposed Anti-Trust Settlement with Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Regarding the proposal to settle the Microsoft anti-trust action 
through donations to the public schools: this ``solution'' 
scandalously rewards and abets the anti-competetive practices it 
pretends to penalize.
    It is true that there would be significant benefit to the 
schools. However, the big winner in this affair would be Microsoft 
itself. Consumers, competitors, and the industry that Microsoft has 
so damaged by abusing its monopoly position, are in no way 
compensated.
    * Microsoft escapes an overwhelming finding of fault with the 
least of penalties--it gives away product, at small cost to itself, 
to a market in which sales are hard-won.
    * This is tantamount to a marketing seed program. The tobacco 
industry must wonder how it failed to be directed to make amends to 
injured smokers by donating tobacco products to schools.
    There has not been a penalty proposed which would fail its 
purpose so utterly, since Brer Rabbit was consigned to the briar 
patch in the Uncle Remus fable.
    I urge any party to this proposal, who has the will and the 
ability to resist it, to refuse such an ineffective, cynical and 
outrageous settlement.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey T. Clayton
    143 Kathryn Drive
    Pleasant Hill, California 94523
    [email protected]



MTC-00010197

From: Raymond Mercier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice, Antitrust Division,
    I do not believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft will 
remedy the harm already caused by Microsoft's past restriction of 
trade practices. Further, I do not see in the settlement any 
protection for ``Open Source'' software providers, specifically 
Linux and Apache which make up a large part of the Internet's 
infrastructure. Far from protecting the public from Microsoft's 
predatory behavior, this agreement seems to simply spell out the 
rules under which Microsoft may continue to dominate markets and 
exclude competitors. The Microsoft Antitrust Settlement fails to 
protect and serve the American people, who deserve better.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Mercier, Jr.
    3 Bear Hill Road, Apartment 7
    Hillsboro, NH 03244
    Phone # 603-464-4934
    E-mail [email protected]



MTC-00010198

From: Wesley Watters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:58am
Subject: What I think.
    Hello,
    I think that as long as Microsoft continues in it's present form 
that there is NO competition in any software market that Microsoft 
enters. This is against all of our values as Americans. I think it 
is your duty to save us from this convicted criminal enterprise, and 
restore competitive balance. I also think an investigation shoud be 
started into Ashcrofts blatent selling out of America's interests in 
this case.
    Do as Judge Jackson said. BREAK UP MICROSOFT!!!!
    Thank You,
    Wesley Watters
    [email protected]



MTC-00010199

From: John J. Urbaniak
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: U.S. Department of Justice
    (I wish to have your Department submit this letter to Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly regarding the proposed Microsoft Antitrust 
Trial settlement. I have sent a similar letter to the State's 
Attorneys General who are in opposition to the settlement. Thank 
you.)
    I am the President and founder of Aviar, Inc., a software 
development company specializing in Computerized Maintenance 
Management Systems (CMMS). I have been in the computer field since 
1966.
    Aviar was founded in September, 1983. We developed and marketed 
a DOS CMMS program called ``Ounce of Prevention System.'' This 
system was very successful: We had more than 550 users worldwide, 
and in 1990 we were judged ``Best Overall'' in a user-satisfaction 
survey sponsored by A. T. Kearney Associates. The survey results 
were published in ``Industry Week'' Magazine, February 5, 1990.
    Personally, I have written several articles on CMMS techniques 
and requirements which were published in major magazines such as 
``Maintenance Technology.'' I have also been invited to speak at 
Maintenance-oriented trade shows and meetings.
    As of 1994, our company had 13 employees and annual revenues 
approaching $500,000. Our growth rate was approximately 22% per 
year.
    At that time, the PC industry was changing from the DOS 
character-based mode of operating to the Graphical User Interface 
mode, based on the mouse and graphical screens. Aviar decided to 
develop a new version of our successful DOS program.
    We did extensive research to evaluate software platforms. We 
studied Microsoft Windows and IBM's OS/2 Operating Systems. It was 
my professional judgement at that time that OS/2 was a far superior 
operating platform than Windows for the

[[Page 25271]]

specific requirements of a CMMS product. OS/2 was more stable; less 
prone to system crashes and loss of data; more resistant to viruses; 
more efficient and made better use of system resources.
    It is my judgement, as of the present time, that OS/2 is still a 
superior operating environment for the needs of Maintenance 
Management software. OS/2 is still more stable, less prone to 
crashes and loss of data, more resistant to viruses and more 
efficient than any version of Windows.
    So, based on this judgement, my company developed a new version 
of our CMMS product, called ``Oz of Prevention System'' for the OS/2 
platform. Little did I know that while we were working hard to 
produce an excellent advanced version of our well-received DOS 
system, Microsoft was acting illegally to prevent our product from 
ever reaching our potential customers.
    We didn't realize that Microsoft was threatening companies such 
as Hewlett-Packard to prevent them from offering PC's with OS/2 pre-
loaded. We didn't realize that Microsoft threatened even IBM to 
prevent them from offering and supporting computers loaded with 
their own OS/2! But these activities came out in the trial.
    As of this writing, Aviar has shrunk to two full-time employees 
and one part-timer. Our revenues have dropped by 80%. I personally 
have not received any meaningful salary in several years.
    It was NOT a simple mis-judgement on my part which caused this. 
It was Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly, combined 
with IBM's [forced?] retreat from the PC Operating System market.
    In order for us to sell our OS/2-based system, we must also 
supply computers along with the software. This is because it is 
impossible to obtain PCs with OS/2 pre-loaded on the open market. We 
have to assemble machines and package them along with our software. 
This adds significantly to our costs, and puts us at a competitive 
disadvantage, even though we believe our product is superior. If we 
buy a machine, say from IBM, we still have to pay them for Windows, 
which we don't want and which we immediately remove. This is not 
right, not in the America which I thought I lived in.
    I believe the following:
    1. My company has a right to exist, to succeed or fail on our 
own, without being prevented access to our market by Microsoft.
    2. We have the right to innovate on our own, without being 
forced to develop software on Microsoft's terms and conditions.
    3. We have the right to grow our own markets without being 
prevented and hindered by the Microsoft monopoly.
    4. We have the responsibility to offer our customers the very 
best product we can.
    In my judgement, the very best product for a CMMS application 
will not be based on Windows, it will be based on a superior 
Operating System such the OS/2 platform for the reasons stated 
above. It is simply wrong either to
    1. Force us out of business, or
    2. Force us to develop for Windows, which we believe is 
inferior.
    I believe, therefore, that the DoJ proposed settlement with 
Microsoft does absolutely NOTHING to prevent Microsoft from using 
its monopoly to continue to restrict our customers from acquiring 
OS/2 computers, and thus to restrict us from competing in a free and 
open market. In fact, the proposed settlement actually strengthens 
Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC Operating System market, in spite 
of their illegally judged behavior.
    My company will continue to suffer and my customers will 
continue to be denied access to what I believe is a superior product 
on a superior operating environment.
    All we want is a chance to innovate and compete fairly. The 
proposed settlement does not facilitate this. I ask that the 
settlement be rejected and stronger remedies be enacted which allow 
my small company to compete honestly without being forced out of 
existence by the illegal actions of Microsoft.
    I assume that there is enormous lobbying pressure and media hype 
generated by powerful pro-Microsoft entities. I am just a small 
businessperson trying to be moderately successful offering a 
superior product to my customers. I haven't done anything illegal as 
Microsoft has done. I pray that American Justice applies to my small 
business just as well as it applies to giant corporations.
    Sincerely,
    John J. Urbaniak, Ph.D.
    President
    Aviar, Inc.
    Ounce of Prevention Software
    1120 Perry Highway
    Pittsburgh, PA 15237
    (412) 488-9730 Voice
    (412) 488-0190 Fax
    [email protected]



MTC-00010200

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse,
    I have been working in the software and technology sector for 
over twenty years. I experienced programming before there was a 
Microsoft, I experienced e-mail, the internet and web browsing 
before Microsoft entered the arena, I experienced Java (TM) 
technology before Microsoft took interest in it. In all these cases, 
I can assure you that there was more competition, *both* 
intellectual and economic, before Microsoft lumbered into the 
picture. I also experienced AT&T when it was a monopoly and 
afterwards. As a monopoly, it was undeniably a better place to work 
because of all the non-work related comforts available and the job 
security, but the productivity of AT&T improved and its creativity 
did not suffer after its monopoly was ended.
    Too many excellent technologies are struggling or have struggled 
(and lost) against Microsoft while Microsoft continues to produce 
buggy, bloated, insecure products that lack creativity. Most of the 
Microsoft ``innovations''--if examined closely--are inferior 
variations of the creations of its struggling competitors. For 
example, while Apple worked hard to merge the best operating system 
(UNIX and its variants) with a creative re-working of the best OS 
user interface (Apple's own) to produce OS X, Microsoft follows a 
year later with XP, which took the high resolution, large-icon look 
and feel of the Apple product (and even stole the ``X'' from the 
name) and grafted it onto its old, buggy NT operating system . . . 
the result, not surprisingly was a buggy OS with major security 
flaws. Yet, XP will crush OS X not because it is better or more 
innovative, but because Microsoft has such an enormous installed 
base and because--to paraphrase the old expression regarding IBM--
nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft.
    In addition to the installed base, the greatest factor that 
assures the continuance of the Microsoft monopoly is their adherence 
to closed, proprietary data formats that constantly change in minor, 
unimportant ways so as to frustrate competitors that attempt to 
interface with them. The Office Suite, with its Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint and other data formats, maintains its control of the 
office productivity tool market by making sure it is difficult for 
other tools to read those formats and almost impossible to write 
them. If a split of Microsoft along OS and application lines is 
completely off the table, then any other remedy should, at a 
minimum, require Microsoft to openly and freely publish up-to-date 
specifications of its data formats. Without the ability of 
competitors--and especially innovative, small-operation 
competitors--to easily read AND write Microsoft formats, real 
competition can never occur. Microsoft Office document formats are 
the lingua franca of the business world and any tools that plan to 
compete MUST speak that language fluently. Naturally, the views 
expressed here are entirely my own and should not in any way be 
construed to reflect the opinions of AT&T, its management, its 
employees or its shareholders.
    Best of luck with your endeavors in pursuit of Justice in this 
matter,
    John Mocenigo, PhD
    John MocenigoE-Mail: [email protected]
    Research @ AT&T LabsVoice: 1-973-360-8639
    180 Park Av / Bldg 103 / Rm D-225Fax: 1-973-360-8055
    Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971



MTC-00010201

From: Ken Cobler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust settlement



MTC-00010202

From: Anthony W. Youngman
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  8:57am
Subject: Comments on the antitrust suit
    Please find attached a document with my comments on the suit, as 
per the Tunney act. You may notice I'm a UK citizen, but as this 
case has international repercussions and my competition authorities 
are likely to get involved when the DoJ decides it's closed the 
case, I trust my input may have some merit.

[[Page 25272]]

    Yours,
    Anthony Youngman
    CC: 'dennispowell(a)earthlink.net'

Critique on the Microsoft Settlement

    Reading the Proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact 
Statement, I am somewhat disturbed at what appears to be contained 
therein in places.
    CIS II (Overview of Relief) looks pretty impressive. However, on 
reading the Judgement, those ``strong enforcement provisions'' boil 
down to the one line in IV.A.4 of ``The Plaintiffs shall have the 
authority to seek such orders as are necessary from the Court to 
enforce this Final Judgement . . .''. Given the problems enforcing 
the 1995 Consent Decree I expect that these strong provisions will 
prove very weak. Don't forget, again with the 1995 decree, that 
Judge Sporkin refused to sign the decree, and it was signed by Judge 
Jackson instead. Judge Jackson's obvious frustration at Microsoft 
during the current case probably stems at least in part from the 
realisation of how easily Microsoft skated round and bypassed the 
1995 decree. Isn't the current case dealing with exactly the 
consequences that the 1995 case was intended to prevent?
    It also concerns me that Microsoft has been convicted of 
breaking the law. Yet there is no attempt whatsoever at punishment. 
It is wealth that gives Microsoft its power. That wealth has been 
gained at least in part illegally. That wealth can be used to ensure 
that Microsoft survives the five years of the judgement reasonably 
intact, at which point it can resume all the destructive tactics it 
has employed in the past. This fear of Microsoft surviving the 
remedy phase moderately unscathed will be more than sufficient to 
permit Microsoft to threaten OEMs during the remedy phase--``When 
it's all over we'll come back and get you!''. And while I can't 
offhand think of any examples, I have come across many examples of 
Microsoft continuing to behave in a reprehensible and probably 
illegal manner even during and after the trial. I am sure others 
will have provided you with examples. It is all a matter of trust 
and many, myself included, believe that Microsoft is a psychopathic 
corporation constitutionally incapable of behaving itself.
    However, let's tackle my concerns over the remedy.
    III. Prohibited Conduct.
    A.
    ``Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a 
termination notice . . . that has received two or more such notices 
. . .''. Justified, unjustified, questionable notices? On a 
simplistic reading, Microsoft is likely to make a point of quibbling 
at every possible opportunity. Past performance leads me to expect 
Microsoft to pick fights with any OEM it expects to have difficulty 
with, specifically to get itself in a position where it can invoke 
this clause. This needs to be tightened up severely.
    B.
    I fail to see how this protects the consumer and prevents the 
illegal practice of ``per processor'' licensing. One of most telling 
and effective ways that the IBM monopoly was broken was when they 
were forced to price hardware and software separately. Given that 
Windows is now supplied for the most part as a ``recovery disk'' 
which restores the hard disk to ``factory fresh'' condition, it 
should be a condition that OEMs are charged only for copies of 
Windows supplied to consenting customers. How hard is it for a 
consumer to switch on a bare pc, put the recovery CD in the CD 
drive, and watch the computer ``recover'' itself to a ``factory 
fresh install state''? I have no problems with Microsoft obliging 
OEMs to ship their PCs with an Operating System included as part of 
the package, just as long as this includes the obligation to offer a 
non-Microsoft alternative. After all, what is marginal cost of 
throwing in a Debian CD?
    C.
    ``Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee . . 
.''. Why is this section so much weaker than the wording at I]I.A.? 
You need to add wording forbidding technical or other measures as 
well! Bear in mind Microsoft has already used technical measures to 
destroy the ability of PCs to dual-boot, any repetition of this 
needs to be nipped in the bud. When you install NT4, it nags you to 
be allowed to write a ``signature'' to the start of the disk. If you 
let it, this will destroy older versions of lilo, the default linux 
boot manager. The cynical amongst us might assume that this was 
deliberate . . . It is thought Microsoft is planning similar tactics 
for when PCs migrate to the IA64 architecture (Intel's x86 
replacement), and with its current recovery disk practice it has 
already implemented something similar. If you are forced to 
reinstall Windows (a not uncommon occurrence) a ``recovery'' will 
wipe any changes you have made to your system, including any third-
party Operating System you may have installed. The sheer hassle of 
reinstalling linux every time Windows breaks is enough to put a lot 
of people off. And Microsoft has already introduced a new disk 
format which (intentionally?) prevents any other Operating System 
from sharing the disk. It is suspected that this will be the only 
format acceptable with the new IA64 generation of CPUs.
    If Microsoft does that, the provisions granted to OEMs in 
section 4 will be worthless, because it will be technically 
impossible despite the fact that it is contractually possible. You 
need to add wording similar to the following:
    ``Both when being installed/restored and in normal/abnormal 
usage, Windows must restrict itself to the portion of disk allocated 
to it by the user. It may not assume that that portion is the entire 
disk unless it has positively detected the absence of any third-
party boot loader or Operating System. It must also provide a 
mechanism whereby any third party can invoke the Windows loader 
similar to the existing boot mechanism where a loader loads and 
executes the first 512 bytes at the start of the disk or 
partition.''
    E.
    ``Microsoft shall make available . . . for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, on 
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms . . .''. In other words, 
Microsoft are free to discriminate against their sole surviving real 
competition, Open Source. By definition, any ``for cost'' licencing 
scheme discriminates against Open Source.
    This section should be rewritten to say something along the 
lines of ``Microsoft shall publish and make freely available a 
formal description of any protocol used by a Windows Client to 
communicate with a Windows server. Microsoft are free to forbid the 
use of their Intellectual Property to be used to enable two non-
Windows systems to communicate, or to forbid the use of their 
Intellectual Property without the appropriate CAL (Client Access 
Licence). Any such CAL must be Operating System agnostic, and be 
supplied and charged separately from the Windows Client.''
    After all, to permit otherwise is surely the equivalent of 
allowing the English Language to be patented? And isn't it, 
actually, also illegal under US Federal law? I thought it was 
illegal to word ``requests for procurement'' in such a manner as 
only one company's goods fitted the bill. Without a clause such as 
thin, any requirement of Microsoft compatibility would effectively 
require the use of Microsoft software and as such would be illegal.
    As I've worded it, there is no restriction on competitors making 
their software speak the same ``language'' (as indeed there should 
not be), but it is perfectly possible for Microsoft to charge a fair 
fee for the use of any of their Intellectual Property. Very similar, 
in fact, to Hewlett-Packard's Open Source printer drivers which 
declare prominently ``For use with HP printers only. Usage with any 
other make of printer may infringe third-party Copyright and/or 
Licence agreements''. By placing the obligation on the user to have 
a valid usage licence (eg a CAL) we can sidestep any argument over 
what is ``reasonable and non-discriminatory''.
    I notice also that the Competitive Impact Statement mentions 
Kerberos in this section. Interestingly enough, Microsoft has 
already attempted to subvert Kerberos once yet this section would 
have minimal effect on the tactic used. Windows 2000 client 
authenticated perfectly to a Unix Kerberos server, yet when the 
Windows 2000 client was granted authorisation, it threw it away 
because the server wasn't a Windows 2000 server. And again, if 
developers are licenced, who is going to pay for a licence to 
distribute MS-Kerberos for linux? More reason to say the 
specification must be openly published and the licence fee charged 
to the user. Interestingly enough, Microsoft didn't use the patent/
copyright trick to attempt to prevent reverse-engineering of their 
extensions. They wrapped the document with a licence agreement that 
said ``if you wish to read the spec, you must agree not to implement 
a non-Microsoft implementation''. If enforced, it would have had the 
effect of making non-MS servers incompatible because the client 
would refuse to use them, and there would have been nothing the 
server software authors could have done about it.
    H.
    1. ``Enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware 
Product''. Taken in conjunction with the (implied) requirements of 
section D, that Microsoft Middleware should not have an unfair 
advantage, these two requirements are mutually incompatible!
    Large chunks of Microsoft Middleware are implemented as part of 
the OS for a reason--

[[Page 25273]]

they are loaded in RAM when the computer starts up, and they stay 
there. This means that, for example, Internet Explorer will always 
appear to load faster than Netscape Navigator, because large chunks 
of it are already loaded.
    Microsoft are also permitted to use their own middleware to 
launch, for example as mentioned by the Competitive Impact 
Statement, ActiveX (should the user's chosen alternative not include 
that capability). But what if I the user chose that alternative 
precisely because it did not include the capability? Should 
Microsoft have the right to demand that I have the capability to 
execute ActiveX, even if I wish to delete it on security grounds?
    This section should demand that users are allowed to de-install 
and delete Microsoft Middleware. It may not be advisable, and it may 
result in large chunks of functionality disappearing, but if the 
user does not want that functionality they should be allowed to get 
rid of it. Completely. Totally. Utterly. To allow otherwise is to 
allow Microsoft to continue its current practice of forcing unwanted 
software onto non-consenting consumers, and if that software has 
major security holes (like ActiveX, for example) then this is a 
serious issue.
    And as has been suggested in various places by other people, it 
should be possible to get and install a ``Windows Lite'' which is 
cheaper and comes without middleware.
    J. No provision of this final Judgement shall:
    THIS SECTION IS EXTREMELY WORRISOME!!!
    Firstly, secrecy and security are mutually exclusive. If 
Microsoft needs to invoke this section then it is a pretty sure-fire 
conclusion that the ``security'' implemented by the relevant APIs is 
shoddy and easy to break. In which case, this section should not 
cover it.
    Given Microsoft's extremely shoddy security in the past, it 
should in fact be a requirement that all security protocols, 
interfaces and APIs are published and disseminated widely almost 
from the moment Microsoft start developing them.
    One only needs to look at the current DMCA/FBI/ElcomSoft case to 
see how secrecy is incompatible with security. Some unknown Adobe 
programmer took a well-known security algorithm. It had several 
traits in common with Enigma which could easily have defeated 
``kiddie'' cryptographers. And don't forget, Enigma was strong 
enough to frustrate the most powerful computers available in the 
early 1940s--they typically broke only 75% of messages. Okay, 
Adobe's method wasn't quite as strong as Enigma . . .
    But this unknown programmer thought he'd be clever and add a few 
tweaks . . ., and succeeded in converting this technique into a 
Caesar cipher. This is so weak a kid can break it using pen and 
paper alone in half an hour--I should know--I've done exactly that 
and I wasn't even a teenager at the time.
    This section should not permit Microsoft to use security as a 
pretence for secrecy in any shape or form whatsoever.
    To my mind, this judgement is almost too prescriptive, allowing 
too much interference in Microsoft's internal affairs. It also does 
little to assist competition on its merits. I personally would like 
to see a simple remedy along the following lines:
    To restore competition generally:
    Microsoft is forbidden from entering into any OEM contracts 
whatsoever. It must publish a price list and stick to it, but that 
price list may include reasonable volume discounts to take into 
account the economies of volume where an OEM buys a lot of copies. 
The price of bundled middleware and applications should also be 
reasonably comparable with the price of the same software as a 
stand-alone or upgrade purchase.
    The problem with having ``Covered OEMs'' is that Microsoft can 
to some extent control who is in which group. By having a noticeable 
differential between the two covered groups and ``the small guys'' 
Microsoft can make it very difficult for any individual OEM to move 
into a more favourable category. This way, if a small OEM makes good 
PCs, they can grow and at the same time provide the OS of the 
customer's choice without fear that the system is susceptible to 
being rigged. If customers want Windows, they can buy it from the 
OEM, or as seems more and more to be the case, they can enter into a 
direct licencing agreement with Microsoft themselves. We need a 
means whereby small OEMs with no affinity to Microsoft can seriously 
threaten the Dells and Compaqs. Without this, the fear of future 
retaliation keeps the big OEMs in line, while preferential treatment 
of large OEMs by Microsoft keeps the small boys from getting bigger. 
And at the end of the decree, we will still have the problem where 
OEMs say ``how high'' when asked by Microsoft to jump.
    Microsoft may establish OEM programs where entry is open at 
reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms to anyone who wishes to 
ensure their hardware works successfully with Windows Operating 
Systems. Such programs may not require any degree of control by 
Microsoft over the hardware vendor's Intellectual Property, and in 
particular may not seek to hide hardware specifications by way of 
Non-Disclosure-Agreements.
    At the moment, linux in particular is hamstrung by the 
difficulty of getting information from manufacturers. Hewlett-
Packard is a case in point, where it has been (officially?) quoted 
that for certain HP printers, HP was contractually prevented from 
telling customers how they worked. So if something changed on your 
computer and the printer stopped working, all you were suddenly left 
with was an expensive doorstop despite the fact there was no problem 
with the printer itself. Microsoft Operating Systems must not assume 
or demand sole control of the computer systems on which they run, or 
interfere with third-party software installed elsewhere on the 
system. As mentioned above. If Microsoft software assumes sole 
ownership of the computer it is free wilfully to destroy anything 
else the user may have installed. This is just plain unacceptable.
    Microsoft must publish all APIs, protocols, interfaces and file 
formats that they provide or use in other words, the ``language'' of 
Microsoft computing. By definition, writing an alternative 
implementation is not a breach of copyright. By definition, if it is 
encumbered by patents it cannot be an Open Standard suitable for 
implementation by Government. And if there are any intellectual 
property issues, these should be addressed by the sale of user 
licences, which must be priced independently of the operating system 
on which the software runs. Bearing in mind I thought Federal 
Procurement Regulations required open standards, I would have 
thought Microsoft should already be complying with this requirement 
if they wish their software to be used for Federal Government 
Business.
    It should be a mandatory requirement that all protocols used by 
Microsoft Software to communicate between computers must be clearly 
and publically documented such that a competitor can implement a 
compatible equivalent. Please note that it says by implication ``all 
software'' so that communication between databases, between mail 
client and server, etc is all caught.
    It should also be a mandatory requirement that all file formats 
used for transferring information between users must be clearly and 
publically documented such that a competitor cart implement a 
compatible equivalent. Here we may have a patent problem, but I 
would have thought any attempt to obstruct compatibility was a clear 
breach of competition law, and possibly a breach of the 
censtitutional justification for patents.
    I'm less sure of requiring Microsoft to document internal 
formats such as the NTFS file system, the internal layout of their 
SQL-Server database, or their Exchange database. There are very good 
technical reasons to say they should, but I'm not sure that there 
are good competitive anti-trust reasons to do so.
    Any such documentation must be released at least six months 
before the Software in question is Released To Manufacturing (RTM), 
and also no later than the date Microsoft start shipping the 
software to testers outside of Microsoft or OEM employees. RTM is 
defined as no later than the date Microsoft permit OEMs to ship the 
software to customers, or the date on which Microsoft implement a 
pricing regime that covers more than the cost of pressing and 
shipping the distribution media. The documentation must be included 
with the software without NDAs or restrictive licences.
    Enforcement should be open to anyone. If Microsoft releases 
software in contravention of the decree, then anybody can act as 
plaintiff and seek a Federal restraining order barring distribution 
of the software. Upon production of sufficiently compelling 
evidence, then the Federal court will grant the order.
    This remedy is actually pretty similar to the one applied to 
IBM. Effectively, it requires products to be unbundled, and 
specifications to be produced to enable competitors to have a 
level(ler) playing field. It should be a requirement that 
competition is restored before the order is lifted. At present all 
Microsoft need do is bide their time, and they have plenty of cash 
in the bank with which to do so.

[[Page 25274]]

    These comments have been submitted by Anthony Youngman, a 
Programmer/Analyst and Database Administrator/Programmer based in 
London, England. Contact details:
    Anthony Youngman
    9 Shaw House
    Victoria Street
    Upper Belvedere
    Kent DA17 5NA
    United Kingdom
    Office tel: +44 20 7351 5000
    Office fax: +44 20 7351 9396



MTC-00010203

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:59am
    Dear D.O.J.:
    If it is in the public interest that you hold these hearings 
then the public should know. The public has a need to know.
    Please televise and broadcast in every way possible the 
proceedings of this and other public interest cases.
    Very truly yours,
    Solomon Katz
    Who art thou that thou should be considered above a grain of 
sand?



MTC-00010204

From: Johanna Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit. I also feel that the harassment of Microsoft 
has gone on too long.
    Sincerely,
    J.M.Stephens
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00010206

From: ANTHONY SHUMBER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To Whom it may Concern
    Get off the back of Microsoft and go chase ENRON they actually 
hurt people.
    Tony



MTC-00010207

From: Ivan Prado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:16am
Subject: Hello
    HI, Just to say:
    I have been using computer for many years now. I want to tell to 
that this past's years I have never seen a bigger monopoly than 
Microsoft is in the coputer world. Their domain is far reaching than 
just the operating system, for with that they can decide the 
technology for video cards, sound, digital cameras, and many other 
multimedia applications (no wonder they keep adding multimedia 
'features') because their software other than allowing other 
programs to work (like a OS used to be) now adds many standars 
(direct X) that eliminate the posibility of independent 
improvements, for that and many other practices Microsoft and thier 
softwares are very dangerous, and they can in fact continue to 
expand their power and continue to force the computer industry at 
their will (more or less) because the costumer base is so huge.
    Their sheer strengh of the number of computers running on their 
programs is enough reason itselft to do something, for it is too 
dangerous, anything considered above the law that MS did, thats just 
a bonus and a good excuse to use against them; this dangerous 
corporation.
    A good decision would be one that defines whats an OS, and so 
make that OS what it originaly was: just a program that turned on 
the computer and put is together, the other software companies can 
run their software, and every program should be a single application 
apart from the rest, the OS apart from all applications even if they 
are from MS. Device standars (like video card drivers and api) 
should be decided by the card manufacturer (two big players right 
now) and so software companies decide what products to support, or 
to support both. Some compatibility would be lost, but that a very 
little price to pay for the freedom of the computer industry. Im 
sure once the industry is free we would see much more imrpovements 
in multiple directions, not just a few like it is right now (like 
direct X)
    Could you please tell me what happens to this e-mail?



MTC-00010208

From: Burton Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hearings
    U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz
    I implore you to rule that the settlement proposed by 
Microsoft's lawyers does not impose the remedy that would address 
their misdeeds. They are giving away product that will cost them 
less than $400 Million dollars but not give the schools the $1 
Billion they claim is the settlement.
    Two previous courts have ruled that Microsoft has broken the 
antitrust laws. Their proposed settlement does not hold them 
accountable in any meaningful way and actually advances their 
illegal gains. Schools will receive product that will further 
Microsoft products at the expense of Apple Computer and free choice. 
The nine remaining states are right to reject this settlement and 
you should send the message that monopolists must but brought to 
justice just as any other convicted felon.
    Here in Connecticut, our attorney general, has been one of the 
lead attorneys in the case against Microsoft and for free choice in 
the marketplace. I trust his judgment in rejecting the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. He has steadfastly stood up and spoken out on 
my behalf to ensure that individuals, companies and governments are 
given the right to chose the solution that best suits their needs 
and not one dictated by a convicted monopolist.
    Your decision will affect lives for many years to come. It is a 
heavy burden. You must decide and demonstrate that laws and the 
judiciary decide on a just penalty, not a self serving industrial 
bully.
    I look forward to seeing how you decide.
    Sincerely,
    Burton Cohen
    TBI Computer, LLC
    [email protected]
    (203) 222-1878 Telephone
    (203) 858-4728 Cell Phone



MTC-00010209

From: lsmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Dear Sir,
    Attached please find my concerns and suggestions regarding 
Microsoft. Regards,
    Larry Smith
    LAWRENCE G. SMITH, JR.
    179 Old Orchard Lane Wayside NJ 07712
    (732) 493-3299
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you to urge you and your Department and the federal 
government to end the political squabbling and endorse the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case. This settlement will essentially 
force Microsoft not only to abandon its former so-called 
anticompetitive practices, but will also obligate the company to 
share its systems and its technology with its competitors. Windows 
will be designed now to accept non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has 
agreed to license its Windows systems products to other computer 
makers for uniform terms and conditions. Microsoft cannot retaliate 
against its competitors. Most importantly this settlement will allow 
Microsoft to continue to exist as a corporate entity in the form 
that has made it a national and international technological giant. 
We need this company solid, solvent and at work. I hope to see the 
settlement in place soon.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence G. Smith, Jr.



MTC-00010210

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Donald and Elizabeth Wanderer
    1033 Tilghman Court
    Wayne, PA 19087-5879
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After a three-year long court battle, I was pleased to hear that 
a settlement was finally reached between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft. I sincerely hope that this is the end of this 
nonsense and that no further legal action is being taken at the 
federal level.
    Taking into account the terms of the agreement, Microsoft did 
not get off lightly. In fact, Microsoft has to now make several 
substantial changes to the way that they handle their business. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included within Windows. 
Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by which 
consumers access various features of

[[Page 25275]]

Windows. Computer makers can replace access to those features with 
access to non-Microsoft software. This is more than fair.
    With the many terms of the agreement, there should be no reason 
for the government to pursue further litigation on any level. Not 
only would it be redundant, but a serious waste of time and money 
all over again.
    Sincerely,
    Donald and Elizabeth Wanderer
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00010211

From: RUFUS WILSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:40am
Subject: Stop Created a problem where none exist!!!
    [email protected]. I support The Bush and Mirosoft 
settlement, Stop weasting tax payer Money and creating problems 
where none exist.
    Rufus John Wilson [email protected] 1-11-2002



MTC-00010212

From: Cheryl Dively
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This email is to let you know I support the Bush Administration 
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. I believe the 
proposed settlement is in the public's best interest.
    Cheryl Dively
    MacKenzie Commercial/ONCOR International
    Direct Dial: 410-494-6659
    [email protected] or
    visit our web site at: http://www.mackenziecommercial.com



MTC-00010214

From: Seamus J. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:50am
Subject: microsoft
    A great American success story. Leave them alone.
    Seamus J. Wilson



MTC-00010215

From: Ronald Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:56am
Subject: microsoft
    leave it go.....
    If it was not for Microsoft and windows ,I would not have a 
computer .I thank Gates for his products
    Why don't they go after AOL



MTC-00010216

From: John M. Sours
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:03am
Subject: An Appeal for Microsoft.
    Renata B. Hesse
    Anti Trust Division
    Department of Justice
    I would like to encourage the acceptance of the proposed 
settlement of this lengthy action against Microsoft. I firmly 
believe that the economy needs the reassurance that the government 
is now free of this sort of damaging mentality. The state of 
Washington desperately needs all the economic boost it can possible 
get, and Microsoft is the best hope we have for a turn around. We 
are one of the leading states in unemployment, and a new wave of 
pink slips are in the mill for several of our other major employers.
    There is no doubt that Microsoft is an aggressive innovative 
company. It's history is an outline of the American dream, and a 
role model for all those other high technology startup businesses 
that hope to also flourish. I have heard Mr. Gates say that he is 
constantly looking back over his shoulder to see which one of them 
is going to be the one that closes in on him. This should be the 
function of a free and open market, not micro management review by 
big government. This action needs to be terminated once and for all 
for the good of the entire economy.
    Please bring us some good news.
    Thank you.
    John M. Sours
    Spokane, WA



MTC-00010217

From: Alayo, Sandra
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to offer my opinion that the settlement be 
accepted. It is time to let the company devote it's resources to 
innovate instead of litigate.
    Sandra
    Phone: 212-852-6567
    Fax: 212-852-6510
    email: mailto:[email protected]>>



MTC-00010218

From: Mary.Wollenhaupt@ago.state.ma.us@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:05am
    Microsoft settlement



MTC-00010219

From: peter woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:07am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Really, enough is enough. I am disgusted that my money, taxpayer 
money, was used to fund this frontal assault on a company whose only 
sin was that it was more successful than its competitors. That last 
time I checked, it was legal for competitors to try to destroy each 
other in the marketplace (see Coca Cola vs. Pepsi; Hertz vs. Avis, 
etc.). This, in case Janet Reno wasn't aware, is called captitalism; 
it benefits consumers.
    If the Injustice Dept under Bill Clinton were truly interested 
in dismantling monopolies that injure consumers, they might have 
gone after the recording industry cartel that has colluded for years 
to keep the prices of records and cds artificially high. But no, the 
entertainment industry new how to play the Washington game and so 
has never felt the brunt of our do-gooders. It's bad enough that 
Micosoft must settle at all; but, for God's sake, let's end this 
idiocy and move on.
    Peter Woods
    [email protected]



MTC-00010220

From: Lynn Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:05am
Subject: To whom it may concern:
    To whom it may concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft request to keep the content of any 
future depositions from being released to the news media: This is a 
bad idea, and would only let Microsoft continue to get away with 
lying and evasion.
    Since this case has ramifications for the entire computer and 
software industry, and for the millions of us who use computers each 
and every day both at work and at home, I truly believe that we, the 
general public, have a right to be informed of what both sides in 
this case are saying.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Lynn Withrow
    Belpre, OH
    Computer Systems Specialist for Bosley Rental & Supply, Inc. 
(Parkersburg, WV)



MTC-00010221

From: ralyea
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02  10:10am



MTC-00010221 0001
    Freehold, NJ 07728-1630
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is so that i may go on record as 
being a staunch supporter of the settlement which was reached 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice, and nine states, with 
the assistance of a mediator. The settlement, reached in ear 
November, 2001, after extensive negotiations among all parties, 
extends to terms beyond the issues in the original lawsuit.
    Microsoft agreed to many terms that will help the entire 
Information Technology industry, Microsoft will disclose the 
intellectual property of the various internal interface used in 
Windows operating system products. Microsoft will grant computer 
makers broa?? new rights to configure Windows to promote even non-
Microsoft softly e programs tha?? compete with programs included 
within Windows. Beginning with Windows XP, Microsoft will make it 
easy to choose and promote non-Microsoft software within Windows 
itself.
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have spent millions of 
dollars baffling each other in the antitrust suit. Any additional 
money that may be spent will be a comple waste. The government has 
too many other issues to worry about right now, and cannot afford to 
pour money down the drain. Our nation's economy is in trouble. A 
healthy Microsoft will help provide the shot in the arm that it 
needs.
    Thank you for allowing me m express my views m support of the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely, ??



MTC-00010221-0002



MTC-00010222

From: Joe Meldrich
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25276]]

Date: 1/11/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    8314 Cricket Lake Drive Charlotte, NC 28277-9842 Phone (704)541-
8062
    Fax (704)541-5895
    Softex, Inc.
    Friday, January 11, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Special interests may try to undo the recent settlement reached 
in the Microsoft antitrust case with the Justice Department. The 
reason I am contacting you is to show my firm support for this 
settlement.
    Microsoft and the Justice Department reached a settlement after 
three long and expensive years in court. Both Microsoft and the DOJ 
spent millions on this case, and thankfully a settlement would bring 
an end to this flow of resources. If the special interests prevail 
Microsoft and the Justice Department will end up in court for 
another three years and spend even more resources on this case. The 
settlement is reasonable; there is no reason for a renewal of this 
case. Under the settlement Microsoft will share more information 
with competitors than any software company has ever shared before. A 
revival of this case would simply waste time and money, and benefit 
only special interests and those with animosity toward Microsoft.
    The settlement that was reached is more than fair, and I stand 
behind it.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Meldrich
    President
    Your Converting Software Solution



MTC-00010223

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Tunney Legislation should be allowed to stand, it is a fair 
settlement. Let the special interest groups that oppose it compete 
in the market place instead of in court.



MTC-00010224

From: Chuck Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft
    I find it rather amusing that Microsoft wants to block the 
public from knowing what their executives or whomever testifies for 
them. I believe most likely their motion will be denied. Microsoft 
with their track record with distorting the truth is probably well 
known, so I will assume the judge is aware of this.
    Secondly, if Microsoft believes they did nothing wrong, that 
they are the true innovators of the industry, the same people who 
allowed ``the open source movement to exist,'' what are they afraid 
of? Why enter a motion to deny the public to information they're 
entitled to?
    Remember Bill Gates' deposition? That was a joke! The guy was 
lying through his teeth the whole time and when the public viewed 
his deposition, it was a joke!
    I'm surprised they haven't found Bill Gates with contempt of 
court.
    Again, this shows if it were you (John Q. Citizen) or me, we 
would have had the book (the law) thrown at us and the judge would 
have had a field day with us.



MTC-00010225

From: Tim Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:36am
Subject: DOJ VS Microsoft
    To Whom it may concern,
    The action against Microsoft needs to be settled immediately. In 
these uncertain economic times it is irresponsible to be trying to 
damage one of the companies that is fueling our economy to such a 
great extent.
    As a tax payer I am outraged by this. It is obvious that there 
is more interest by some Government officials in enhancing their 
careers or catering to their constituents than there is in doing the 
country a service.
    Sincerely Yours
    Tim R. Carlson
    Snohomish, WA
    360-668-4047



MTC-00010226

From: Dick Uguccioni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:37am
Subject: microsoft case
    end it--this country is weird--never heard of a government, 
except this one, that would penalize a world leading enterprise in 
its own country
    did i hear right-- 41 states have signed off ??



MTC-00010227

From: Wes Mitchell
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/11/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust case
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    email: [email protected]
    Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme 
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were 
not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    J. Wesley Mitchell
    L & M Services, Inc.
    1600 132nd Ave. NE
    Bellevue, WA 98005
    425-637-9770
    425-637-9769 FAX
    CC:'[email protected]'

[[Page 25277]]



MTC-00010228

From: Melody Berkheiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:53am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Go with the Bush and Microsoft settlement. It is reasonable. It 
is in the best interest of the public. It is best for every one all 
around, including, but not limited to our economy.
    Melody Berkheiser



MTC-00010229

From: Robert Cornell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Robert Cornell
    307 Joe Cornell Rd.
    Oneonta, NY 13820
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Cornell



MTC-00010230

From: Mark Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Mark Williams
    3957 Shadowhill Drive
    Santa Rosa, Ca 95404
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mark A. Williams



MTC-00010231

From: Jack Ensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:14am
Subject: Microsoft
    1/11/02
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    To Whom it May Concern,
    As a citizen of Washington State, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    I won't go into detail, but I think the proposed settlement is 
fair and it is time to put this quagmire behind us. In the effort to 
protect us, the government sometimes does more harm than good. I 
think this has been a case of that kind. It certainly is time to 
bring it to a close and this settlement seems to be a way to do it.
    Thank you for letting me say my piece.
    Jack Ensley
    624 Shawnee Rd.
    Colfax, WA. 99111
    509 397 3327



MTC-00010232

From: Joe Alonzi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    re: Microsoft settlement
    Over the last several years the on going suit against the 
Microsoft Corporation has cost us the taxpayers many, many dollars. 
I can see no further reason to delay this ongoing issue any longer. 
The agreed settlement sometime ago seems too have been accepted by 
both parties and now its ugly head has reared up again and I would 
like to see this end and get on with making our economy run and 
become strong again.
    Free enterprise has built this nation and it will continue to 
grow without the courts telling them how to run their business.
    Respectfully.
    Joseph A. Alonzi
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00010233

From: Lynda Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having been an active consumer of Microsoft as well as 
competitive products for many years, I feel strongly that the case 
should be settled according to the agreement reached. Having 
discussed this case with others, who like me, are either users at 
home or at their business, not one person has expressed any thought 
or feeling that they have been taken advantage of by Microsoft, or 
have paid too much for the benefits and services Microsoft has 
provided. While I do not agree with the governments findings, and 
believe the states not agreeing to the settlement are simply 
pursuing additional funding for their state budgets, it would 
certainly be best for all--the consumer, the PC and software 
industry, and the economy, for this settlement to be concluded, and 
for the remaining states to join the settlement.
    Lynda Newell



MTC-00010234

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:55am
Subject: stop MS
    Judge KK;
    the proposed settlement doesn't even begin to address the 
predatory practices of Microsoft...and will not reign them in going 
forward. please use your good efforts to make them play by the 
rules.
    thanks.
    Gregory Winston
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010235

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:03pm
Subject: (no subject)
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme 
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were 
not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to

[[Page 25278]]

state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. 
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an 
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court 
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    William G. Miglino



MTC-00010236

From: Jean Gumm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jean Gumm
    1122 Ross Avenue
    Hamilton, Oh 45013
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Gumm



MTC-00010237

From: David Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:06pm
Subject: Tax settlement
    I support the microsoft tax settlement, and want the government 
to lay off and quit harrasing microsoft.
    Thank you.
    David & Janice Carlson,
    Liberty, Mo.



MTC-00010238

From: Peter Kulda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement January 11, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement fails to achieve the 
necessary goals of a proper remedy: halting the illegal conduct, 
promoting competition in this industry, and depriving Microsoft of 
its illegal gains.
    The United States can only maintain its competitive edge in the 
global software industry if open and fair competition is promoted in 
our country, which won't occur until Microsoft is stopped from 
stifling its competition. I agree with the concern that if they are 
not dealt a very sever penalty that is stringently enforced, 
Microsoft will continue with its monopolistic practices. And if it 
does, I fear that the USA will eventually fall behind in software 
innovations which will lead to foreign nations taking much of the 
market share, similar to how Japan to took much of the auto industry 
market in the 1970's.
    Thank you for hearing my opinion, and thank you for your work on 
this important case.
    Peter Kulda
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00010239

From: Tom Swan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to stop penalizing commercial success. Let's get the 
high technology sector back into the economic engine. I agree with 
President Bush. Settle the Bill Gates Microsoft lawsuit and quit 
wasting taxpayer money.



MTC-00010240

From: John Horvatic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:14pm
Subject: PUNISH MICROSOFT DON'T GIVE THEM MORE BUSINESS!
    To whom it may concern,
    Microsoft needs to be punished, and from what I have read so far 
is that has not happened yet! There should be a huge fine and I'm 
not talking millions I'm talking BILLIONS!!! Put them down for the 
count not just for the round. What you have aggreed to do is give 
them a slap on the hand and tell Microsoft to go ahead and do it all 
over again and we promise not to bother you anymore. What kind of 
punishment is this? Why don't you throw some of the executive team 
in prison. I thought that's what you do with criminals isn't it?
    Please be more aggressive with this case and don't let them get 
away with what they have done and continue to do. I find the 
settlement very unfair to Apple Computers Inc. To let Microsoft put 
there own products in schools and force all schools to change out 
there equipment will not help anyone except Microsoft spread more of 
there crap out into the world.
    Who profits from this? MICROSOFT!
    Sincerely,
    John Horvatic



MTC-00010241

From: walter roubik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:23pm
Subject: DOJ--Microsoft settlement
    I want to email DOJ on the settlement, but on [email protected] I 
can't find any opening for comments. Fo you have any suggestion?



MTC-00010242

From: DONALD L STEELE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off Microsofts back. This action was only taken because 
competitors were upset.
    Donald L:. Steele

[[Page 25279]]



MTC-00010243

From: dmath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
    We are at war as a country why do we have to have war within 
against an ali and a contributor to our country. Microsoft is a 
great company that provided we the consumer with an excellent 
product. Due to a few whiners/ competitors you the government took 
up a law suit that has benefited none. Settle this case and stop the 
stupidity!
    Lynette Matheson



MTC-00010244

From: Phil Bassett
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  12:31 pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft case January11 .doc>> Philip H. Bassett 
January 11, 2002 Renata B. Hesse Antitrust Division U.S. Department 
of Justice 601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear MS. Hesse:
    As a citizen of Washington State, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the antitrust case involving Microsoft.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme 
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were 
not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be trusted 
to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false assertion. The 
Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim that sent the 
parties into litigation--the Department of Justice claim that 
Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. Furthermore, this 
settlement takes the extraordinary step of creating an onsite 
oversight body. There are, therefore, no legitimate grounds for an 
assertion that a consent decree will not constrain Microsoft's 
behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there 
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major 
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a 
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the 
behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business would be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Philip H. Bassett



MTC-00010245

From: George Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed carefully with regard to the Microsoft 
settlement. The past has shown that Microsoft will not follow 
guidelines that have no enforcement, and will also exploit any 
limitations or loopholes that are present. Please ensure that 
competition is restored to the computer industry. Consumers need to 
be able to choose the best product for their needs, not the only 
product available.
    Our country has been based upon fair play and equal opportunity. 
Let's not give up those values now.
    Thank you for your time,
    George Wagner
    Computers, Support, & Consulting
    6015 Glenbeigh Drive
    Sylvania, OH 43560
    (419) 882-0472
    FAX (419) 882-0253



MTC-00010246

From: Jeffrey Doyle
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    I strongly oppose Massachusetts' involvement in trying to alter 
the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    Stop listening to competitors who are avoiding the truth.
    Jeff Doyle
    Sonexis
    70 Franklin Street
    Boston, MA 02110
    (p) 617.531.8072
    (f) 617.897.7898
    [email protected]
    www.sonexis.com



MTC-00010247

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Honorable Renata B. Hesse,
    Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200,
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    The Attorney General of the State of Iowa, Thomas Miller, JD, 
has suggested that I forward to your office my thoughts on the above 
case with respect to the DOJ objective (2), i.e. ``to spark 
competition in this industry''.
    I am a recently retired engineering professor, with earlier 
experience in computers & electronics at Collins Radio Company, 
Cedar Rapids, IA and as Chairman of the Electrical & Computer 
Engineering Department at the University of New Mexico--and listed 
in Who's Who in America. With respect to the pending Microsoft 
antitrust case, I would like to offer my support for long-needed 
competition in the design of better and more open computer operating 
systems.
    Forty-five years ago with the help of a well qualified 
engineering team I developed, with approval and cooperation from the 
Cedar Rapids IBM office, a computer operating system specialized to 
handle the mathematical equations routinely used by scientists and 
engineers like those at Collins. The key to its long string of 
successes was IBM's permission to study the detailed ``innards'' of 
their business machine processor & storage hardware, to enable the 
development of an optimized (and easy to use) set of simple links to 
the outside world. In all of the years elapsed since then, I have 
not seen an operating system of comparable capability and 
simplicity--even with the subsequent major improvements in hardware 
speed, memory, printers, telelinks, and mouse-controlled displays. A 
few software companies, under Microsoft Windows restrictions, have 
tried to produce mathematically adequate programs for equation 
computations, graphical plotting, and scientific text composition--
but in my view they all lack user flexibility and are clumsy to use.
    For example, for years in Windows, to even shut OFF the machine 
you have to press START, press SHUT DOWN, press OK. And you cannot 
even delete the ``MSN Internet Access'' icon advertising Microsoft. 
I have been unable to find any mathematical capability above the 
level of simple (and

[[Page 25280]]

clumsy) arithmetic. The add-on called Visual Basic is totally 
inadequate in my judgment. Also, real privacy and security on the 
internet are fictional. Cookies and unapproved sales of your 
interest profile should be outlawed--no one should be able to load 
anything into your machine without your specific approval of the 
text in advance every time. Almost any software specialist could 
quickly remedy these and other defects if he or she could have open 
access to the programming code at the fundamental chip level.
    In order to foster the commercial competition necessary for the 
evolution of new ideas in operating system software, I believe that 
any settlement with Microsoft should require a COMPLETELY stripped 
down operating system that makes it easy for anyone to develop his 
or her own way of handling equations, data, text, graphs, pictures, 
sound, and interfaces to lab bench equipment. This would quickly 
clear out the impediments to the development of new economic growth 
in the computer hardware and software markets. For example, if 
linked to a simplified ``open book'' Windows operating system, an 
improved-and-flexibilized version of the True Basic compute & plot 
system developed years ago at Dartmouth would in my opinion result 
in rapidly expanding markets in science, engineering, and education.
    Thank you for considering my rather elementary contribution. 
After all these years I am still hoping for a remedy that does more 
than simply resolving the current internet-access problem.
    Victor W. Bolie, PhD
    4440 Morris Street NE # 334
    Albuquerque NM 87111



MTC-00010248

From: Golden, Steve
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 7026 Via Ostiones Carlsbad, CA 92009-
6614 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department 
of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The antitrust lawsuit leveled against Microsoft by the Federal 
Government was completely unfounded and totally unjustified. 
However, since a settlement was reached between the parties, it 
should be accepted and finalized by the courts as soon as the public 
comment period ends.
    I personally feel the main tenets of the settlement go too far, 
are not fair to Microsoft and hurt the ideals of free enterprise and 
capitalism. Microsoft could easily go on fighting this thing out in 
the courts for years. However, Microsoft has very nobly agreed to 
accept and abide by the terms of the settlement instead of wasting 
millions of taxpayer dollars in round after round of court battle 
with the Federal Government.
    For all intents and purposes the Federal Government won this 
case and should be very pleased with the outcome. The fact that 
Microsoft will now be forced to grant computer makers broad new 
rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs that compete with programs included in Windows is proof 
that the Federal Government has met its objective. Additionally, 
Microsoft will be forced to document and disclose its various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system products--
a first in an antitrust settlement.
    Furthermore, Microsoft must make available to its competitors 
any protocols implemented in Windows' operating system products that 
are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server 
operating system. Finally, Microsoft has agreed to a three-person 
Technical Committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance with 
the settlement and assist with dispute resolution. The government 
did the same thing to Bell Telephone Company back in the late 1970%. 
The results were tragic and I fear that the government did not take 
into account the future impact and this too will have a tragic 
effect on technology and the entire world. It appears that the 
Federal Government, at taxpayer's expense, won't stand for progress 
and will do everything it can to penalize or destroy the guy ``out 
front,'' such is the case with Microsoft. Microsoft has transformed 
the face of the planet for the better and should be left alone once 
and for all. Please finalize this settlement as soon as possible. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Golden



MTC-00010249

From: Rich and Bonnie DiBlasi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:07pm
Subject: abuse
    stop the foolishness already . . . leave micro.alone to go about 
the business of making the econ. strong again. . . .
    rich d.



MTC-00010250

From: randy ellis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it concerns
    I feel as a consumer that I May be able to purchase a product 
such as a computer, that I should be able to have certain choices of 
what is loaded onto my computer, application or operating system. 
It's bad business when I Buy a car, that I do not have a choice of 
interior or exterior colors, Options like A/C, P/W, P/L, sunroof, 
etc. I do have a choice to goto another manafacturer. but when there 
is shadey dealings going on that a manufactuer cannot offer dual 
boot operating systems or a choice, that the consumers get left out, 
as well hurt small business such as (Be inc.) Which I think was 
greatly harmed by microsoft, and Be's Operating System being a 
breakthrough before Microsoft's and Apple's recent released 
Operating Systems. I currently use it now, and have been using it 
for a couple of years. I think it is absolutely the best Operating 
System avaliable and will never stop using it. However I do have to 
use my Windows98SE for somethings due to limited drivers, largely 
due to Microsoft's monolpoly, (because the company's fail to write 
the driver's because they know Microsoft rules the market). I would 
like to see the BeOS or equivalent back into the market place, but 
there is no hope of success if the following issues aren't 
addressed: examples: open Office file formats, Win32 APIs, make 
dual-boot options mandatory, etc . . . ''
    Thankyou
    Randy



MTC-00010251

From: gclemen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Approval of the Microsoft Settlement will clear the way for 
continued growth in an industry that has completely stalled out over 
the past 3 years. It should be obvious to you by now that 
Microsoft's innovations in software drive the rest of the industry 
to produce more and better hardware and software products. Without 
that drive, the entire industry languishes for lack of direction, 
which is where we have all been lately.
    The release of Windows XP is a good start toward recovery. I am 
using the product and have to say that Microsoft has some work to do 
to get it into the mainstream market. Nevertheless, any new 
operating system creates opportunities for other innovative products 
which either address the new problems caused by the new Microsoft 
product or take advantage of the new capabilities offered by the new 
Microsoft product. In all cases, the release will spur competitors 
to develop new products. Notice that while the case was ongoing and 
no great innovative MS products hit the market, no other competitors 
emerged from the background to take the lead. The entire industry 
just sat on the sidelines.
    I say Lets Get On With It! Approve the Settlement and let the 
market do what it is going to do. There are plenty of discerning 
software users who will give Microsoft a hard time about their 
products without the government involved.
    Margaret Felts



MTC-00010252

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please drop this case and let this company continue to serve the 
people. It has a good business record, and just because it is a rich 
company should not be prosecuted according to the desires of others. 
Let them make their millions, and serve the computer age.
    Wilda I. Dixon
    Rockledge, Florida 32955



MTC-00010253

From: Laurence Lewitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of 
Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to urge you and your office to allow the recent 
court settlement with Microsoft to stand on its own merits. I

[[Page 25281]]

strongly believe that the original antitrust litigation was a total 
farce and completely unnecessary. It appears that the government is 
persecuting successful corporations at the behest of the company's 
competitors. That is WRONG.
    The settlement is a fair one and was reasonably negotiated over 
an over extended period of time. The agreement contains provisions 
that maintain Microsoft's accountability to the industry and, 
unfortunately, the to government as well. Microsoft will share 
information about the internal interfaces of Windows with its 
competitors, enabling them to more easily place their own software 
on the operating system.
    In addition to the state support for the settlement, there are 
too many important national priorities that need your attention, 
beyond the continued review of a successful business entity. With 
the ongoing war, a destabilized national economy and a faltering 
international political environment, I would hope you would allow 
this settlement to move forward and concentrate on the bigger more 
important picture.
    Very truly yours,
    Laurence G. Lewitt,
    69 The Circle,
    Glen Head, N.Y. 11545



MTC-00010254

From: Dave Hedger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    I, like most people who use computers, feel like the antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft was not well-founded from the start. 
Consumers have in fact benefited greatly from Microsoft and their 
Windows software. The lawsuit was initiated by disgruntled and 
jealous competitors, and joined by states who, like sharks, smelled 
blood in the water. The whole fiasco was a great perturbation in the 
economy, and contributed significantly to the bursting of the 
technology bubble and bear market that followed. Now it's time to 
admit the mistake and move on. Continuing the lawsuit is only 
prolonging the recovery, as investors nationwide await the result. 
My advice is to consummate the negotiated settlement hammered out 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Do the USA a favor: let's move on.
    Dave Hedger



MTC-00010255

From: Rob Steinbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:37pm
Subject: About the proposed barring deposition disclosure for 
Microsoft
    Dear Sirs:
    If Microsoft was to get their way, allowing pretrial depositions 
to be prevented from public disclosure, then I think it would be a 
disservice to the entire justice system.
    I was taught in childhood that nearly the entire American 
justice process was supposed to be open, with some notable 
exceptions, not secret courts that effectively prevent defense, or 
prosecution, of the defendant.
    I don't believe that Microsoft's pretrial depositions fall into 
one of these exceptions. Since very little of the depositions will 
deal with actual trade secrets, then I don't see how Microsoft could 
reasonably expect the judge to uphold their requests.
    I urge that the judge consider the nature of the request and 
keep in mind the need for the most open trial she can have, as 
permitted by law and common sense.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Steinbach
    Programmer/Analyst
    Ideal Chemical and Supply, Co.
    4025 Air Park Street
    Memphis, TN 38118



MTC-00010256

From: Paul Nendick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm a computer software engineering professional and am 
concerned by Microsoft's monopoly in my field of business. Their 
business practices, corporate ethos and products all threaten the 
Freedom of Speech.
    The lynchpin for this is the popular Microsoft Word file format. 
Word (and other Microsoft Office) files trap each and every thought 
expressed in them by storing them in a proprietary, binary file 
format.
    Only Microsoft products can correctly and consistently decipher 
these and no other software products can or ever will be able to do 
this. Microsoft has gone to great lengths to obscure and incorrectly 
document these file formats. Each word and thought expressed in 
these formats is a prisoner to Microsoft's future whimsy. Today 
these file formats cost no money to view, but will they in the 
future? Can we take this sort of risk?
    I have personally investigated these issues as have hundreds of 
other programmers and we have all come to the same conclusion--
Microsoft Office is and always will be the only software that can 
use these files.
    There is a good discussion of this matter found here: http://
www.newsforge.com/article.pl
    To illustrate the importance of open standard formats for 
information exchange in binary formats such as these, one need look 
no further than the Internet for a shining example. I can use a 
Macintosh to view a webpage servered on a Sun server written by a 
Linux user. All this communication occurs flawlessly over a myriad 
different vendors' hardware. If Microsoft had understood the 
Internet better in it's formative stages, I'm certain we would not 
enjoy the remarkable open forum for ideas that the Internet is 
today.
    A possible solution to this matter is to require Microsoft to 
fully support open, standard file formats for each of it's products. 
These formats can readily be designed in the same environment that 
forged the standards that hold the Internet together (IEEE) or the 
formats designed by the open source OpenOffice using the open XML 
specifications could be chosen: http://xml.openoffice.org/
    In addition to making Microsoft support such a format(s), I 
believe it would be beneficial for the Justice department to 
recommend that the version of file format decided upon be the 
standard format used by the US government for its electronic 
document publishing.
    If you like me to elaborate on these or any related issues, 
please contact me at this email address or at my home:
    Paul Nendick
    1420 West Fulton #2
    Chicago, IL 60607
    Sincerely,
    Paul Nendick



MTC-00010257

From: Jeffrey Liang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud you for your settlement with Microsoft. The settlement 
is fair and in the consumers' best interests.
    Microsoft may dominate the desktop market, but the PC is no 
longer the paradigm for computing. Thus, the anti-trust case has 
become almost a moot point. Government intervention would have 
undoubtedly shaken the software industry. In a time of economic 
uncertainty, drastic remedies may not be the best medicine.
    As a software engineer, I may not like Microsoft. But I approve 
of your settlement nonetheless. Thank you for you efforts.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Liang
    203 E 31st St Apt 306
    Austin, TX 78705



MTC-00010258

From: Myles J. Swift
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I want to put in my two cents on the Microsoft case. We are a 
small software developer. Never has any company other than Microsoft 
provided so much help to an industry. When CD players were new and 
very expensive, Microsoft sold thousands of them to developers at a 
loss to start the CD market. When voice systems started to come in 
they did the same thing. They practically gave away what were $500 
to $600 boards to get people started on voice programming.
    Before Microsoft every computer manufacturer had a unique 
format. Floppy disks would only play in one brand of machine. 
Differing operating systems meant that we had to customize the 
program for each brand of hardware. Our software retailed for $3,995 
in 1982. A better product sells today for $1,000.
    With the cost of living changes the price differential is at 
least 8 to 1. Microsoft enabled the average end user of our products 
to save $7,000 on the price of a program compared to what it would 
cost without standards. This makes a case for how much Microsoft has 
helped consumers.
    If Microsoft made computers and did the complete bundle I could 
see the merits of the case.
    Right now Sun, Apple and IBM produce and sell these items 
direct: operating systems, hardware, networking components and 
applications. Microsoft sells operating

[[Page 25282]]

systems and applications. Microsoft products are less expensive 
after distributor and retailer markup than the products sold direct 
by the other companies.
    If their products did not have a good price/performance ratio, 
they would not succeed. I can see some merits in the case for how 
they worked with large hardware manufacturers. I cannot see any case 
for the public having been harmed. Please contact me if you have any 
questions.
    Sincerely,
    Myles J. Swift
    Computer Assistance Inc.
    Creswell, OR 97426
    auto/truck repair management
    software since 1977
    voice 541-895-3347



MTC-00010259

From: John R. Munn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam;
    I strongly oppose the DoJ proposed settlement with MicroSoft as 
it does not address the core issues of marketing misconduct and anti 
competitiveness. It will not result in a more competitive industry 
nor even in a better product from MicroSoft.
    As a 30+ year programmer and a user of MicroSoft products for 
13+ years I know what I am talking about technically. MicroSoft 
products are pretty and incorporate many innovative ideas (some 
great in practice and some disastrous). However, the performance and 
stability is such that if I had produced them and did not correct 
the problems in short order I would, justifiably, be replaced. With 
no significant market share competition, MicroSoft has no compelling 
reason to improve their products beyond keeping them pretty for the 
sales department with a new looking version periodically (without 
ever fixing the underlying problems).
    If I as a private citizen continually violated agreements with 
the Justice Department (or any government agency) I would be jailed. 
If there were a small business which violated the laws to the extent 
that MicroSoft has it would be shut down and possibly have its 
principals jailed. What would not happen is having an agreement 
drawn up based on ``what can you say that you will do that will 
sound like some action has been taken?''.
    While I do not advocate the destruction of MicroSoft and am 
ambivalent on it's breakup. I do know that effective (underlined) 
action must be taken to 1) restrict future unlawful action on 
MicroSoft's part, 2) some punitive steps for past misdeeds, and 3) 
provide a competitive environment for the entire industry. The 
current proposal addresses none of the foregoing effectively, if at 
all.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Munn
    Miami, FL 33157



MTC-00010260

From: Bud Levinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that the Justice Dept. is taking public comments 
reguarding the proposed settlement of the Microsoft monopoly case.
    It is my opinion that the proposed settlement is probably about 
as fair as it is going to get. I further feel it is in the intrerest 
of our Country and of the consumers of Microsoft products to have 
this controversy settled now--rather than to drag on for an 
indefinite period.
    So I am in favor of the Justice Dept. accepting the settlement 
as it now stands.
    Thank you for carefully considering my opinion.
    Harold Levinger
    1235 Yale Place
    Minneapolis, MN 55403



MTC-00010261

From: Raymond Pettitt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Raymond Pettitt
    808 Kennedy Ave.
    Va. Beach, Va 23451-1142
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond C. Pettitt



MTC-00010262

From: Alan Bargmeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We are a retired couple and use our computer daily. We don't 
know of anyone that feels they have been harmed or cheated by 
Microsoft. Their products are fairly priced and extremely well 
designed. We were not brought up using a computer and are thankful 
to Microsoft for making things so simple for us to learn and use. 
Their customer service is provided without charge and is available 
24/7 to swiftly help us with any problems that may occur. We are not 
interested in having the DOJ support Microsoft competitors so they 
can provide ``innovations'' that the market doesn't want or need. 
Please support the current settlement and let Microsoft get on with 
producing the fine products we need.
    While we do not believe Microsoft is cheating consumers, we do 
feel the oil companies are using their power to keep prices 
unreasonable high and the DOJ could help consumers by investigating 
their practices.
    Sincerely,
    Alan & Janet Bargmeyer



MTC-00010263

From: Steve Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 9199 S. Fox Fire Way Highlands Ranch, 
Colorado 80126 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US 
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing first to congratulate you on reaching a settlement 
in the Microsoft anti-trust case. I would like to see you make sure 
this settlement is completed.
    The settlement that was reached will create more competitiveness 
in the IT industry. This settlement requires Microsoft to share both 
internal interfaces and formerly secret code with competing software 
firms. This means that the competitors will have unprecedented 
access to Microsoft code and be able to compete as never before. 
Those that claim this settlement is weak are simply wrong.
    Full implementation of this settlement should be a priority for 
your people.
    I appreciate you taking time to consider my views on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Miller



MTC-00010264

From: Cottrill, Carole
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  2:37pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Antitrust Case January 11, 2002 Attorney General 
John Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a great believer in the American dream--working hard, 
believing in yourself, pursuing something that is yours alone--and 
the rewards that will result from these principles. Bill Gates, 
through Microsoft, followed his dream and achieved more than anyone, 
even probably him, believed possible. He has since been punished for 
this by having to spend more than three years in court. Your office 
too has faced hardship and expense in this case.
    The Department of Justice brought an antitrust case against 
Microsoft three years ago, charging monopolistic practices; i.e. his 
products were too good; hence, people

[[Page 25283]]

bought too many, ignoring other firms' products. The case was 
eventually settled, with Microsoft acquiescing to the Department of 
Justice's demands, and satisfying many of Microsoft's competitors' 
desires.
    Microsoft will, for example, share software information with its 
competitors and allow them to place their software on the Windows 
operating system. Microsoft and the Department of Justice have made 
an equitable settlement. The American people want to move on. I want 
to see an end to federal action in this case, and the settlement is 
the best option to end it.
    Sincerely,
    C. Cottrill



MTC-00010265

From: Terry Cornelisse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough! Take this settlement and move on!!!
    Jim & Terry cornelisse



MTC-00010266

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the name of Justice, U.S. principals, and to stop wasting our 
tax dollars please accept the settlement now,
    George J. Deutsch,
    5060 Key Largo Circle,
    Punta Gorda, FL,33955
    Dennis Whittaker 34
    Jeweff Hill, Berkshire, NY 13736
    January 14, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
    950 Penna. Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The 
changes it requires will restore fair competition and prevent future 
antitrust violations.
    Microsoft has agreed to release the interfaces that make Windows 
work with software applications to competitors, meaning that other 
companies can figure out how to better write programs for Windows. 
Naturally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that take 
advantage of this new information. Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to 
enter into any agreements that force third parties to distribute any 
Windows technology exclusively. Clearly, these restrictions will 
benefit the consumers as well as the technology sector as a whole.
    This settlement is in the best interests of the State of New 
York, The U.S., and the economy because it will stop any 
anticompetitive behavior before it starts. Continued litigation 
against Microsoft will put millions of dollars into a case that has 
already seen a fair and reasonable end.
    Let the IT industry concentrate on business as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Whittaker



MTC-00010267

From: Adam Shostack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    Doubtless you will get a large number of long, complex comments 
regarding this case. I'll keep this to the point.
    I have read through the many documents in the US vs Microsoft 
case, and I am disappointed and concerned about the weakness of the 
proposed remedies. Microsoft has violated the spirit and the letter 
of the law. The proposed settlement does not sufficiently penalize 
them, control or limit their behavior, or deter them from future 
anti-competitive acts. Please ensure that the case results in a 
substantiative penalty, and imposes strong controls on Microsoft's 
future activity.
    Yours,
    Adam Shostack



MTC-00010268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this article below shows that MSFT has peddled for favors from 
President Bush on down to congressmen, and Attorney General 
Ashcroft...... if you approve this settlement, you will be flying in 
the face of the Tunney ACT..... please consider what you are doing, 
this settlement does nothing to keep MSFT from violating the law.... 
it doesn't even address all eight of the findings of the appeals 
court...... please use your power to stop this blight on 
justice......
    Microsoft Fails To Disclose Congressional Lobbying
    By Robyn Weisman, www.NewsFactor.com
    According to several legal experts mentioned in news reports, 
Microsoft ( Nasdaq: MSFT--news) failed to inform federal judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that it lobbied members of Congress in 
relation to its ongoing antitrust case. Court filings reveal only 
that Microsoft contacted members of the executive branch of the 
federal government, not anyone in Congress, despite reports to 
Congress that the company spent US$300,000 on lobbying in the first 
half of 2001 alone.
    AT&T Didn't; Why Should We?
    Defending itself against the allegations, Microsoft contended 
that AT&T, when it was embroiled in its own antitrust case in the 
early 1980s, also failed to inform its federal judge of its lobbying 
actions toward Congress, despite a 1974 statute that requires 
companies to do so.
    That statute, known as the Tunney Act, was designed to prevent 
companies like Microsoft and the old AT&T from peddling favors to 
government employees in exchange for more leniency.
    jon.



MTC-00010269

From: Billie Love
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices:
    The people of the United States have had to fund this 
prosecution against Microsoft. I think the settlement that has been 
reached is in the best interest of the people. Please don't let any 
of the State Attorney Genereals continue this litigation. I support 
the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this 
litigation.
    Billie Love
    8665 Springhill School Rd.
    Belgrade, Mt. 59714



MTC-00010270

From: Allen Wiesen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and 
nine states reflects a reasoned approach to remediation of market 
inequities. We fully support the settlement, and are disappointed 
that the remaining nine states have not yet seen the obvious merits 
of the agreement.
    Dr. and Mrs. Allen E. Wiesen,
    Sarasota, FL



MTC-00010271

From: Rodger Sorenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of this message is to let you know that I support an 
immediate settlement of the Microsoft case without any further 
delays and/or litigation. This issue has dragged out too long to the 
benefit of nobody except the lawyers and it needs to be closed as 
soon as possible. This is America-lets treat our innovative 
companies like Microsoft like we appreciate what they have done for 
our country.
    Thank you,
    Rodger D. Sorenson,
    5370 W. Flying Circle,
    Tucson, AZ 85713.



MTC-00010272

From: Dwight A. Ernest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:02pm
Subject: Comments in Microsoft v. US Gov To whom it may concern,
    Here are my comments in the matter of Microsoft v. US 
Government:
    The proposed settlement does not sufficiently penalize 
Microsoft, nor does it sufficiently control or limit their behavior, 
nor deter them from future anti-competitive acts. Please ensure that 
the case results in a substantive penalty, and imposes strong 
controls on Microsoft's future activity.
    Yours most sincerely,
    --Dwight A. Ernest
    Internet Engineering Manager
    551 Main Street
    Boylston MA 01505-1313
    [email protected]
    Phone: 508.826.7335



MTC-00010273

From: William G. Wizner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William G. Wizner
8544 Stone Harbor Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89145-5707
January 11, 2002

[[Page 25284]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William G. Wizner
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my concern on the recent events behind the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I am against any further government 
action. What I do not understand is the punishing of Microsoft for 
producing a quality product. Under our system of free enterprise, we 
are free to purchase and use any computer products we wish. It just 
so happens that Microsoft has created far better products than other 
competing companies have been able to.
    Can you imagine that use of the Internet by ordinary citizens 
would have been possible without a common platform for 
communications? In addition to the superior software Microsoft has 
created, the company has created a niche in the marketplace that in 
the past decade has brought a huge amount of growth to our economy, 
not to mention the standardization of computer software programs 
that have allowed computerization to become part of everyday life.
    As an investment portfolio manager, I represent clients who have 
invested hard-earned savings into American companies like Microsoft 
whose financial success benefited ordinary Americans willing to 
invest in these companies. The additional litigation risk to 
shareholders has risen dramatically in this country as tort lawyers, 
including state Attorneys General, seek deep corporate pockets. It 
is no coincidence that the peak in our financial markets coincided 
with the Justice Department's announcement in March 3000 that it 
would seek to break up Microsoft.
    Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights 
to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs. 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it 
easier for non-Microsoft software to be installed within Windows, 
and Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee to monitor 
future compliance. I doubt if other firms would do as much. It is 
shameful that companies like Microsoft should be punished for their 
success-whatever happened to the American dream? I urge you to 
support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Renee Smith



MTC-00010274

From: Donald Phillippi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Phillippi
4 Sand Island Acc. Road #40
Honolulu, Hi 96819-4355
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Donald L. Phillippi



MTC-00010275

From: bdouglas@hamakua. Central.Sun.COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:02pm
Subject: Paragraph 24 -27
    To whom it may concern,
    Reference paragraphs 24--27 I would like to comment. Three years 
ago I tried to buy a PC from Dell and did not want windows. I went 
to their web site and found what I wanted. So I called up Dell and 
asked if I could buy the PC without Windows and at first they said 
no but then agreed to. I then inquired about the price without 
Windows and it was the same as with Windows. It was explained to me 
by one of the sales persons that Dell was forced by Microsoft to 
sell a Windows license with every PC, regardless if the OS was every 
installed or used. So not only do they tie I.E. and other 
applications to the PC but the OS as well.
    Bob Douglas
    303 475-2769



MTC-00010276

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/11/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms Hesse:
    I would like to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Antitrust case. I believe that the offense against 
the American version of doing business and against the American 
people is far to great for the DoJ to treat it in this fashion. I 
believe that the points raised by the Attorneys General of the 
various dissenting states are far more pertinent than those of the 
DoJ. While the Court of Appeals vacated a portion of the original 
judgment, they retained all the conclusions relating to Microsoft's 
exclusionary and anti-competitive acts. I believe the proposed 
settlement treats these acts too lightly.
    Sincerely,
    Peter H. Salus, Ph.D.



MTC-00010277

From: Marla Araki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to

[[Page 25285]]

 state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. 
The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an 
order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the court 
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends. 
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses 
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so 
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation 
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to 
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to 
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marla Araki
    John Priebe



MTC-00010278

From: jordan pollack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:14pm
Subject: ms settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement. Your agreement helps Dell, 
Compaq, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc, the sellers of computers who have had 
to deal with Microsoft's favoritism and capriciousness in pricing 
over the years, and it perhaps helps application vendors who want to 
preserve interoperation across microsoft's upgrades (like 
wordperfect (dead), Lotus (dead) Netscape (dead) Real (almost dead) 
Palm (almost dead).
    But I believe that as long as Microsoft can dictate when and how 
much an upgrade costs for what has become a public standard like the 
electric or telephone socket, the nation will continue to be 
fleeced. Your settlement does nothing here.
    If it were simply made illegal for the vendor or a proven 
monopoly product to charge for an upgrade, the vendor could not 
profit from bundle in clones of competitive products like outlook, 
explorer, mediaplayer etc, expecting to get their fee from forced 
upgrades and market capture. They would have to compete more fairly 
against unbundled goods. And, instead of monopoly in every area of 
software through competitive upgrades, secret formats for files, we 
would arrive through evolution of competition at public standards 
for fle formats (like word and html and poperpoint) and oligarchies 
on user interface (like wordstar, wordperfect, and word, all working 
on the same files, or Powerpoint, Freelance, and Persuasion, working 
on the same presentation format!) Finally, the old licenses on 
junked computers (with appropriate certification) would become 
valuable in trade instead of worthless.
    If you do fail to close this agreement, please read http://
jordanpollack.com/softwaremarket for a free market solution.
    Professor Jordan B. Pollack
    Dynamic & Evolution Machine Org
    Computer Science Department
    FaxPhone/Lab: 781-736-2713/3366
    MS018, Brandeis University
    http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu
    Waltham Massachusetts 02454
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00010279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:21pm
Subject: A monopoly by any other name...
    Hello,
    I'd like to voice my dissatisfaction over the United States v. 
Microsoft Settlement. I do not feel that the proposed actions will 
do anything to stop Microsoft from wielding their monopoly power. 
Every time there is a new release of the product, you see companies 
crushed.
    Unless Microsoft is broken into separate companies (OS, Browser, 
Word Processing, Spreadsheet) they will continue use Company A's 
technology in one release, stifle them, and then do what they wish 
in the next release (like the Kodak issue going on in XP).
    I think what was agreed upon is less than a slap on their wrist 
and more of a slap in the face of the consumer. Through monopoly 
power and extortion (which is still against the law, isn't it?) , 
they nearly crushed Netscape. Have you ever wondered what happened 
to the Lotus Suite? It wasn't an inferior product that succumbed to 
superior product.
    Furthermore, why should I be FORCED to pay an additional $99 for 
a computer that has MS Windows loaded on it? I want to run Linux. I 
should not be forced into paying for something that I do not want.
    Thank you,
    John Borger



MTC-00010280

From: Roger Rush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General
    Please see my comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement
    Sincerely,
    Roger Rush
    Network Source One
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am very glad about Microsoft not being split up by the federal 
government. As president of a network service provider company that 
depends on standardization, continuity, and reliability, I believe 
if Microsoft had been broken up requiring me to utilize 3 to 5 
different companies for my needs, doing business would be very 
difficult. This is because things would no longer be one hundred 
percent compatible.
    Microsoft's operating system is a seamless product and is very 
easy to work with, which allows my company to operate smoothly. To 
suddenly be forced by the government to alter this system would, 
quite simply, be extremely strenuous.
    I understand some of Microsoft's original adversaries are 
against the settlement and are trying very hard to disrupt it before 
the court can finalize it. I suppose this is due to the fact that 
the government did not break up Microsoft. These entities will not 
be satisfied and probably will not give up their relentless pursuit 
until it is. This is unfortunate, because the settlement is totally 
fair. For example, Microsoft will change its licensing agreements 
with companies, and redesign Windows operating systems to make non-
Microsoft features more accessible. I only hope it is finalized as 
soon as possible and that you do everything within your power to see 
that it is. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Rush
    President



MTC-00010281

From: Geudner, Michael A (Michael)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:34pm
Subject: WAY TO GO- MICROSOFT IS A MONOPOLY THAT SHOULD BE BROKEN 
UP!



MTC-00010282

From: Harry Bardal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25286]]

    Dear Madam
    I have watched the Micrsosoft antitrust trial with great 
interest. As a Canadian citizen I have been somewhat frustrated at 
my governments reluctance to act on what I believe to be Microsoft's 
anticompetitive practices. The ball seems to be in the court of the 
American justice system and my hope is that a fair remedy is found. 
I have used Microsoft's products and continue to, many are useful 
business tools. I do feel however that their business practices have 
been predatory and unfair to smaller businesses trying to compete in 
an already cutthroat industry. Although Microsoft succeeds in 
establishing standards that channel and consolidate computer usage 
and facilitate communication, the standards always proprietary and 
always seem to be vertically integrated with other Microsoft 
products. Perhaps more regrettably, these standards are often 
substandard. A phrase heard often in my area of business is 
``Microsoft Lock-in'' It refers to the inability to use third party 
software in concert with Microsoft products. This combined with real 
virus problems and rather egregious security flaws makes many 
Microsoft products a necessary evil for many people even in the face 
of superior competing products.
    I have seen some intelligent, well designed software try to 
compete with the Microsoft dominance and fail. Microsoft has 
expressed it needs to be allowed to innovate. Few Microsoft are 
truly innovative or remarkable and yet Microsoft's practices have 
quelled or absorbed other companies that have innovated. The 
technology sector has been a driving force in the American economy 
and by extension the Canadian economy and it deserves some scrutiny.
    I believe that personal computers are the single most important 
tool of our age. They are the first example of true multi-use and 
not single-use technology. Many companies will have something to 
offer as the industry matures. I hope these companies might dare to 
innovate, compete and contribute to the Microsoft line of operating 
systems as well as Linux, Mac OS, Unix and dozens of other variants. 
I hope that this is is allowed to flourish in a atmosphere of fair 
competition.
    Regards
    Harry Bardal
    Vancouver, BC



MTC-00010283

From: Bill York
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Upon hearing about the solutions for the settlement in the 
Microsoft case I was appalled to hear that a company that has 
committed so many grievous acts against other smaller corporations 
would be handed so light a sentence.
    Perhaps the one part of the settlement that disturbs me the most 
is the fact that Microsoft donate $1 billion in refurbished 
computers and software to schools to use. While at first glance this 
may seem like a very noble cause in truth this settlement enables 
Microsoft to leverage their monopoly even more.
    What will happen is that the refurbished computers will consist 
of PC's and the software will be Microsoft based software.
    Now being a software engineer myself I'm very well acquainted 
with the business model when it comes to producing software. There 
is an initial large cost up front for the design, development, and 
testing of the software. But once this cost has been fulfilled and 
the software developed the costs associated with mass producing the 
software, often involving copying the software code to a CD, 
printing of any manuals, and then the boxing and shipping of the 
product are relatively inexpensive. Using this cycle it is fairly 
easy for Microsoft to refurbish the cost of the initial investment. 
But because of this methodology they can easily produce a billion 
dollars worth of software and yet barely have their bottom line 
impacted because of the cheap costs associated with producing the 
CD, manuals, and packaging.
    If you truly want to penalize Microsoft then make them pay $1 
billion dollars to be distributed to the school systems so they can 
spend the money how they see fit. These individual school districts 
can then go out and purchase a non-PC devices and software produced 
by other companies than Microsoft. This is in turn will help foster 
competition and will come much closer to realizing the goals of this 
antitrust lawsuit in the first place.
    Thank you for reading,
    William York
    P.S. The comments sent to the Dept of Justice does NOT reflect 
my employer's opinion and is solely my own opinion.
    William York
    1254 Bluebird St.
    Brighton, CO 80601



MTC-00010284

From: mmikowsk@demai05.mw.mediaone.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As I have not received a validation from my prior posting, I 
again respectfully submit this proposal:
    I am currently an owner of an Information Systems and software 
development firm. Based my firm's experience in this field, I 
propose the following adjustments to the Microsoft settlement:
    1. PROPOSAL A
    a. OVERVIEW
    The US Government (and other governments) should embrace open 
standards for file formats for commodity applications such as Word 
Processing, Spreadsheets, Database, Graphics, and Mail.
    b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
    * A national or international standards committee be formed to 
oversee commodity file formats, much like the W3C.
    * Formats be developed for Word processing, Spreadsheets, 
Database, Graphics, and Mail.
    * These formats should be based on open, published standards 
that can only be extended through the committee.
    * The US government adopt these standards as required for 
governmental correspondence.
    * Software producers must show their tools are compatible with 
these standards before government agencies employ them.
    * Software producers should be encouraged to publish their 
compliance to these standards.
    c. REASONING
    Microsoft's monopoly on the business desktop is not derived from 
its innate value of its operating systems, but by its anti-
competative use of its monopoly to control proprietary formats used 
in commodity applications.
    Microsoft Word, Excel, Outlook, and others employ proprietary 
formats controlled, and changed at will, by the company. Any attempt 
to use other tools to access or edit this data are hamstrung 
Microsofts propensity to change these formats at its whim. This is 
the core of its anti-competative practices.
    Microsoft has shown a pattern of first embracing competing 
formats (such as WordPerfect, and Lotus 1-2-3) and, once market 
dominance has been ensured, have emphasized their own proprietary 
formats. This is a trend they have continued to this day. One only 
need to look at how their ``extensions'' of HTML standards are 
currently being used to block access from any other platform besides 
their own. In the past, we wrote on paper. There are hundreds of 
producers of pens and paper. Today, we often write in word 
processors and spreadsheets. Should only one company in the world 
control the access to the intellectual property we create? d. 
IMPLEMENTATION The technology and software already exists to move 
this proposal to a reality in a very short time period. The US 
Government could change to open file formats with little pain by 
employing Star Office while saving untold millions in licensing 
costs. It can require all html document meet the W3C guidelines for 
HTML. The government would provide the impetus from moving its data, 
and that of the people, out from under the control of a private 
interest, and into open formats where we the people can access our 
own data without being required to purchase a Microsoft product to 
do so. e. REFERENCES Open File Formats: http://
www.computerworld.com/cwi/community/story/0,3201,NAV65-1797--
STO64689,00.html Star Office, which employs open, XML formats with 
excellent capabilities: http://www.sun.com/staroffice/6.0beta/
;$sessionid$ROHKZK4E1MJ0RAMTA1FU3NQ The W3C group has provided 
standards which has allowed dozens of competing web browsers to be 
successfully developed:
    http://www.w3.org
    Anyware Office, which employs XML-like file formats in a product 
which works extremely well
    Anyware Office: http://www.vistasource.com/products/anyware/
office/
    f. DISCLAIMER We own Microsoft Office Professional. We manage 
dozens of Microsoft OS's and Office products. We have tested (and 
are impressed) with Star Office. We also use Anywhere Office in an 
office of 5 individuals. We have no other connection

[[Page 25287]]

with the companies or software presented above.
    2. PROPOSAL B
    a. OVERVIEW
    The proposed settlement for providing Microsoft access to our 
children's and educators' minds is counter-productive to the good of 
the people and the government.
    b. PROPOSED ACTIONS
    * Require any software provided to US schools to be compliant 
with the requirements as set forth in Proposal A of this comment.
    * Adjust the settlement so that Microsoft is responsible for 
providing hardware and funding only.
    * Provide an independent body for determining the software and 
training employed by the schools.
    c. REASONING
    The proposed settlement to provide Microsoft software and 
training only further benefits the company, while displacing other 
firms such as Apple and RedHat. By taking the proposed value and 
applying it to hardware and funding only, the public is ensured to 
receive the value offered by Microsoft.
    d. IMPLEMENTATION
    I have no additional recommendations for implementation of this 
remedy at this time.
    e. REFERENCES
    The RedHat Counter Offer:
    http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press--
usschools.html
    f. DISCLOSURE
    We own Microsoft Windows 2000 and Mandrake Linux. We use RedHat 
Linux as our OS for web service development.
    These are fair adjustments to the proposed settlement. They will 
provide innovative competition the like of which the industry has 
never seen.
    I am available for discussion of these remedies at any time.
    Respectfully Submitted
    26 November 2001
    Michael S. Mikowski
    Managing Director, Uniphied Thought LLC
    Dearborn, MI 48126
    Tel 313-441-2579
    Mobile 313-550-8406
    CC:[email protected]



MTC-00010285

From: MCMICHAEL, Ron (AAS)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  3:42pm
Subject: LET THE SCHOOLS HAVE THEIR COMPUTERS



MTC-00010286

From: carrol townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:58pm
Subject: MY OPINION
    IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE US GOVERNMENT THINKS THAT THE PRICE OF 
PRODUCT SUCH AS DELIVERED BY MICROSOFT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE IF 
BETTER
    CONTROLLED BY THE FEDS. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE SAME ARGUMENT 
WITH THE BREAKUP OF THE BELL SYSTEM.
    THE US GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PICK A BETTER FIGHT, ONE THAT COULD 
HELP RATHER THAN HINDER.



MTC-00010287

From: Ulstad, Gary
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  3:59pm
Subject: Stop beating them up.
    It is nice to have them providing jobs and paying income tax in 
the United States. I do not know about you but, I like US companies 
leading the world.
    Gary Ulstad



MTC-00010288

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft and the State of Washington
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law.
    Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case. These objections ignore the decision of the 
Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge Jackson's original 
findings. The Appeals Court threw out findings on many fronts 
related to Microsoft's anti-monopolistic behavior. One key area 
rejected was the basis used for claiming that integrating Internet 
Explorer and Windows represented monopoly abuse. The court went 
further to state that any new burden of proof for ``tying'' would be 
immense. The court also rejected the breakup order and made it clear 
such an order moving forward would be difficult to sustain given the 
court ``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends. 
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses 
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so 
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation 
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to 
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to 
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Mr. & Mrs. Thomas A. Joki,
    Mill Creek, WA



MTC-00010289

From: Chuck Burr
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think that this entire law suit is only because a few 
companies did not want competition and got in bed with the last 
administration. That aside, the Justice Department worked out a 
settlement that would help many children in this country. To give 
millions of people a few dollars is not an impact and by the time 
that money would get to the same poor schools it would be ten cents 
on the dollar. We need to move forward in this country and it is 
things like this Judge's ruling that will put this country into a 
real depression. I say move forward. This decision disapoints me, I 
know the Justice spent millions of our tax money to get here and now 
will spend even more if it has to go forward in a different 
direction....
    Chuck Burr
    Franchise Principal
    Accountants Inc. Reno, NV
    ``Focused on Accounting and Financial Talent''
    www.accountantsinc.com



MTC-00010290

From: Joseph Gregory
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Gregory
11 Valley, Lane

[[Page 25288]]

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18707-1735
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Gregory



MTC-00010291

From: Justin Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:07pm
    Personally, I think that all of this bullshit against Microsoft 
is ridiculously absurd. The only reason that the company is getting 
sued is because other incompetent people or businesses can't compete 
with the best in the business. Fuck all of you, jealousy is a sin, 
Bill Gates started Microsoft with no believers and now he's on top 
of the world and everyone wants a slice of his pie....yea, more 
money, more problems for Mr. Gates. Leave the man and his company 
alone, they have done wonders for the world of technology and just 
because he has what everyone else doesn't assholes wanna take it 
away from him....Pardon the swearing, but it's just another thing 
that is corrupted in this whole fucked up world that isn't run by 
leaders, or the people, but by the necessary evil called money. It's 
also good that all of the matters are being handled by the ongoing 
joke called the justice system...you won't beat Bill Gates, he's 
just gonna laugh at all of you stupid fucks from his position that, 
no matter how much you sue him, you will never attain. Have a great 
day.



MTC-00010292

From: hord, george
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft the Giant with the Battle Axe
    To Whom it Concerns;
    My primary thoughts are:
    1) Microsoft has some allies because Microsoft helped them 
become rich by proving coat tails for the loyal or obedient.
    2) Microsoft has CRUSHED or rendered non existent any will to 
compete because of their marketing practices.
    3) There has never been a question about ability to innovate--
Microsoft has never been or wanted to be the innovator, just the 
crusher. Let someone else lead and then CRUSH. Microsoft has ALWAYS 
copied technology or bought it, never innovated.
    4) Microsoft should be given absolute guidelines/mandate on what 
is operating system software what is internet software and what is 
application software. If USDOJ cannot do that then set up an 
independent panel that makes the decisions.
    George Hord



MTC-00010293

From: Wesley Harrell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I wish to register my opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. In short, I disagree with the provisions of the 
settlement, and I believe the current proposal lacks any real 
punishment to a company that has been found guilty in the past, as 
well as in the present case, and if unchecked will act in a similar 
manner in the future. A just settlement would include, but are not 
limited to, some of the items I list below.
    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. 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, 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.
    4. No settlement should include free Microsoft software to 
schools, or other needy organizations. This does nothing to decrease 
Microsoft's control over the computer market, and in fact increases 
their market share.
    Regards,
    Wesley Harrell
    232 NW 4th Ave
    Gainesville, FL 32601



MTC-00010294

From: Peter Lewandowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:16pm
Subject: I thought this was a monopoly investigation?
    If Microsoft is a monopoly the main task should be to stop 
Microsoft from being a monopoly, if they are not then just leave 
them alone. If you go to McDonalds are they not allowed to sell 
Pepsi products, or Taco Bell sell Coke? Even if it's a franchise 
most are required by the agreement to sell one or the other product 
not both. Now I?m not a big Microsoft fan nor do I like Bill Gates, 
but if Bill made America believe that they have the only operating 
system good for him. I personally need to use it in business and 
it's a corporate directive. I would rather use something like LINUX 
but unfortunately there is little useful business software for it 
and we do not have the staff to support both LINUX and Microsoft.
    I have an idea that the Justice Department seemed to overlook. 
Don't break Microsoft up but rather make them liable for security 
violations that ``known issues'' and the cost related to businesses 
that have a violation. Have a ``Lemon Law'' for bad software. 
Currently if a software company has a known bug that disrupts 
business, or forces a business to pay a fine, they don't get charged 
for that. Think about it this way, if you bought a car and the 
brakes didn't work wouldn't you sue the manufacturer for a defective 
product? Why don't software companies get held to that level of 
liability? If Microsoft had to reimburse companies for each worker's 
hours who had to restart their computer because Microsoft's software 
was written so badly they would be a very, very small software 
company fast and have a very small user installed base.
    My two cents,
    Pete
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00010295

From: Rush, Brad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  4:17pm
Subject: Settle Now
    Get it over with. Your actions are giving them justification to 
charge even more for their software. Let free enterprise work.
    Brad Rush, CMA, CFM, CBM--
    CNL Retirement Corp.
    Office: (407) 650-1010
    Fax: (407) 650-1022
    Cell: (407) 421-1003
    E-Mail: Office mailto:[email protected]>
    Personal mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00010296

From: Ania Lewkowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    I was very saddened by the Microsoft settlement and how it 
seemed that all the evidence in the world could not break through 
that steel wall of a monoploy. I cringe to liken this case to the 
O.J. Simpson

[[Page 25289]]

trial, where the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of his guilt, 
yet it seems as though the jury was somehow ``jaded'' to believe his 
story when the rest of the world thought of it as an open and shut 
case of spousal murder. In a way, this MS case is no different. How 
is it possible to see the plethora of proven instances of 
monopolistic behavior, yet to let them go with no more than a slap 
on the hand? I truly believe that Microsoft got off VERY easy, and 
as a consumer, I am frustrated by my inability to determine for 
myself the design and configuration of the initial screens displayed 
on the PC's being sold today. My choice is limited to either Windows 
or virtually nothing. And if that's not a monopoly, then I'm 
interested to hear another definition explaining what exactly that 
is.
    Sincerely,
    Ania Lewkowicz



MTC-00010297

From: Pouya Yadegar
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Case.
    The premise that a company that makes money did it by cheating, 
lying and stealing and did it at the detrement of ``people'' is 
exactly the opposite of what happens. Anybody that makes money is 
HELPING and more importantly has the right to pursue their goals.
    Your counter to that is that ``what if they do it by cheating''? 
The answer is that the people get to vote with their $$, not the 
government by some chaotic mystical measurement that changes from 
day to day. If you want further clarification of this concept please 
review the results of communism/socialism countries like Russia and 
their results vs. (for the most part) democratic countries like the 
U.S.
    The only ``monopoly'' that exists anywhere is one started by the 
government, subsidized by the government (See Fannie Mae, Freddie 
Mac and the USPS.) Microsoft had no government help and they need to 
be honored for their contribution to society. The entire country and 
even the WORLD needs to have a yearly celebration thanking Microsoft 
instead of Breaking their balls. If everybody pursued and achieved 
what Microsoft has done the world would be such a utopian place that 
is not even imaginable compared to our society today.



MTC-00010298

From: Kris Brinkerhoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:28pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft anti-trust case
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that Microsoft needs to be punished just like any 
other company found guilty of practicing a monopoly. The industry 
usually has to conform to what they say they are going to support or 
not support in their operating system. To have your hardware item 
listed as being ``made for Windows'' gives you an edge over the 
competition.
    As for their trying to appease the government by providing PCs 
to lower income students and schools, they should actually provide 
Macintosh computers or cash otherwise they are again undercutting 
competition and widening their customer base and dependence/
influence upon them once again.
    Also if they have a piece of software on CD they can just 
duplicate the software on the CD. It is pretty much like being able 
to print their own money. They can copy as many as they want and 
call it 500 million in software because they are selling the license 
to use the software.
    The damages should be paid in monetary figures not in software 
which can be produced once and published an infinite number of 
times.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kris
    California: [email protected]
    Connecticut: [email protected]
    Florida: [email protected]
    Iowa: [email protected]
    Kansas: [email protected]
    Massachusetts: [email protected]
    Minnesota: [email protected]
    Utah: [email protected]
    West Virginia: [email protected]
US Dept of Justice-Microsoft anti-trust comments:
[email protected]
US Dept of Justice-other sites worldwide:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/otheratr.htm
    Kris Brinkerhoff
    --ITS Help Desk Analyst
    --California State University, Fresno



MTC-00010299

From: Fritzly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    In my opinion it is time to close this unfortunate episode that 
only brought to the surface the many contradictions of our system. 
First we had a Judge so anti MS oriented that the trial reminded me 
the ones in Beria's time. In spite of that I still don't see what 
damage was caused to the consumers by MS behavior. I am a customer, 
I bought in 1995 Netscape Navigator and I paid it more or less $35 
when IE by MS was already free, why? Because it was a better 
product! After that Netscape failed to improve their software and I 
switch to IE because it became a better product. The most serious 
issue here is that tax payer money has been and it is being used to 
satisfy the request of MS competitors, who unable to create a better 
product are lobbying to harm the competition with me paying the bill 
to do this! This is a real scandal and must stop. Do you really 
believe that people are so stupid to believe that when MS 
competitors speak out they do it to protect consumers? Nobody who is 
awakens and active in our society believe it. The same fact that the 
only way to bring MS in court was to use a law more than eighty 
years old, a law created specifically to hit a certain company, a 
law involving the right to use natural resources and not, as MS 
case, to commercialize intellectual properties. Be very careful 
targeting the same idea of success, being smarter is not a sin as it 
is not being a mediocrity, the real sin is pretend that as you are a 
mediocrity everybody else must stick at your same level. History 
books are full of examples of what I mean.
    Best regards
    Stefano Colasanti



MTC-00010300

From: Jon Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Jon Thompson, and I am a resident of Iowa (706 South 
Main, Woodward.)
    I've recently read that the National Department of Justice has 
settled with Microsoft on a punishment. In my opinion, this 
settlement is much too light, and it will not restrict Microsoft's 
existing illegal practices.
    The remedy should require Microsoft to:
    1. Use open standards.
    Microsoft has shown that they repeatedly use a technique of 
``embracing and extinguishing.'' Microsoft will embrace an open 
technology, then make changes that only Microsoft products can 
understand. The web is an example of this. Microsoft has implemented 
new, subtle, additions to HTML (the web's language) that only 
Microsoft browsers can read.
    2. Make all applications available to alternate Operating 
Systems. Microsoft has kept other systems (Linux and Mac OS) out of 
buinesses by limiting the available Microsoft software for those 
platforms. If MS was required to make--all--software available to at 
least two operating systems besides Windows, it would minimize that 
lock of their Monopoly.
    Also, this would limit the pressure that Microsoft could impose 
on other companies. It is well known that Microsoft threatened to 
drop Mac OS support for Office unless Apple used Internet Explorer 
as the default browser. If MS was required to support two other 
operating systems for all applications, they wouldn't have this 
power.
    I hope that Iowa is not one of the states that supports the 
current settlement, as it is not nearly hard enouch.
    Jon Thompson
    706 South Main
    Woodward, Iowa 50276
    ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary 
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.''--Benjamin Franklin



MTC-00010301

From: Jeff Powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:36pm
Subject: microsoft settlement case
    Its to bad that the judge of the microsoft settlement case 
regards capitalism as more important than education. What is this 
world coming to?
    Aaron



MTC-00010302

From: Curt Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.

[[Page 25290]]

    I support the settlement proposed by the Bush administration.
    AL GORE may have invented the internet, but Bill Gates is the 
one who made it possible for all of us to use it.
    Quit spending tax payer moneys on the pursuit of more 
litigation.
    Curtis Johnson
    2511 M-140
    Niles, MI
    49120
    [email protected]



MTC-00010303

From: Robert C. Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:41pm
Subject: The Microsoft Ruling
    Thank goodness--the judge that ruled against the Microsoft 
settlement can see the some of the anticompetitive effects that 
would result.
    The original ruling is right: MS should be split up.
    When IBM was in trouble in the 1960s and 1970s, they were not 
treated the same way MS would be treated should they be allowed to 
distribute PCs to schools. In those days, the law seemed aware 
enough to realize that capturing dominant market share at the level 
of the public schools would strengthen a company's competitive 
stranglehold on the computer industry considerably. It would also 
enable them to influence the market mindset of future generations in 
their favor. Why would it be any different, now?
    Also, what about Apple? Shouldn't they be allowed to exist and 
to attempt to compete?
    You should take a look at a number of MS's practices. Nestscape 
has suffered. Clearly, MS's next targets are Sun Microsystems 
(Java), and any commercial Linux offering that might threaten their 
market share in the future.



MTC-00010304

From: Biondo, Ted HS-SNS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft case comments
    US Department of Justice,
    A far greater threat to our country's free enterprise system, 
than any adjudicated monopolistic tendencies of Microsoft, is the 
precedent being set by members of Congress and State Attorneys 
General who have placed the financial goals of Microsoft's 
competitors, residing in their respective states, ahead of the 
American consumers! These ``defenders'' of competition are using the 
powers of their office, and the courts to intimidate and dictate 
restrictions on businesses in order to level what should remain a 
competitive playing field.
    Microsoft created standard operating systems and application 
software that has decreased the price of consumer hardware and 
software, not increased it. Microsoft developed software processes 
that have brought computers to the masses using visual format, while 
creating millions of jobs in associated peripheral hardware 
equipment by simplifying those peripheral interfaces for 
nontechnical users. This is bad for the consumer?
    Finally, in the global arena, foreign nations have created 
government financed monopolies, and now a common currency, to 
compete with American corporations. To remain competitive, our 
manufacturing industries have been consolidating and outsourcing 
processes for years to those very same nations, resulting in the 
loss of American jobs and purchasing power. One of the few remaining 
successfully competitive businesses the USA holds in world commerce 
is the software service industry. Since this software monopoly 
``witch hunt'' was begun by those who cannot compete in our free 
market without using their government officials to stifle 
competition, our overall ability to compete in the global market 
will be reduced and will inevitably drive the software service 
industry down the same road as its manufacturing counterparts.
    Investors will not risk their capital in a marketplace 
controlled by political whim versus business scrutiny!
    Terrorists from without will never damage our free enterprise 
system as much as the self-serving powers from within under the 
guise consumer protection! The Justice Department settlement of 
restrictions, the ban on exclusive contracts and disclosure of APIs 
goes far enough. Please end this charade. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on this most important case,
    Ted Biondo
    (815) 226-5958



MTC-00010305

From: Joe Vislocky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft's rejected settlement
    I believe the judge was acting in a well considered manner. It 
seems to me that to punish a company whose practices have been 
deemed anti-competitive by giving them the means by which to further 
their monopolistic strategies was ill concieved in the first place. 
I know in my mind and many of my colleague's, it appeared that 
certain parties in the government had switched sides and were in 
fact in collusion with Microsoft.
    Joseph S. Vislocky
    IT Director
    Wilmac Corporation
    [email protected]



MTC-00010306

From: Roger Lathrop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
    Yet another Federal Judge has misunderstood the Microsaft 
situation. I have owned apples and IBM compatibles. I've worked with 
dos, Windows, & Linux. Microsaft simply has a superior product. I 
was very happy to have a free browser included. In point of fact, I 
prefer Netscape, so I downloaded that with Microsoft's free browser 
and was in business in a few minutes.
    My state (Iowa) has made a bad decision based on politics and 
not on fact. The settlement should be approved because the suit is 
ill founded and harmful to our economy. If anyone cares what this 
one individual thinks, there it is.
    Roger Lathrop
    Davenport, Iowa



MTC-00010307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:51pm
Subject: WHEN WILL QUIT WASTE TAXPAYERS MONEY AND END THIS GAME
    i do not owne any stock in miscrosoft but i feel this legal drag 
on microsoft has gone enough with no one benefiting at all only 
remedy is money so why not agree to number and wrap this hell we are 
sick and tired of it and i will still use microsoft so what is 
gained from something old like this case microsoft has agreeded to 
admit some fault and will pay for it what else can you get nothing 
but waste alot of tax payers money you can't brake it up for appeal 
court said this already i just find it strange that we are a real 
bad recession and you are going after the engine in the car without 
microsoft there is no recovery and you will see real defiects we can 
not afford another 2001 but unless this is not settled and quicly 
then we will
    mr. bush has already said he wanted closed quickly now please 
end this game we have enough problems then the ego game by 9 
district attorneys who are only looking for policial gains only
    thank you
    george g. dingoian
    [email protected]



MTC-00010308

From: Bob and/or Jan Thune
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Get off of Microsoft' case. Once again government is wrecking a 
vibrant US industry, just like they did the Automobile Industry 
(where I made my living).
    This is NOT about protecting the consumer. Even the DUMBEST 
person knows that you are not abusing the customer by giving 
something away something for free. It just can't happen.
    This case is about ``wanna be's'' spreading money around 
Washington, and Washington sucking it up just like they always do.
    Somewhere this has to end..... End It !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I hope Gates moves his business to Canada just to show you 
idiots !!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Robert and Jan Thune, Lecanto, Fl.



MTC-00010309

From: Dan Jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:52pm
Subject: Recently, a friend of mine asked what I thought of the 
Microsoft case.
    Recently, a friend of mine asked what I thought of the Microsoft 
case.
    Me: ``Do you think the maffia is profitable?''
    Him: ``Sure''.
    Me: ``If you could invest in stock in the maffia, that would pay 
dividends, might you do it?''
    Him: ``Sure!!''
    Me: ``Suppose you did that; you put most of your investment cash 
into maffia stock; and it paid handsomely.''
    Him: ``Yeah!''
    Me: ``The maffia is reputed to give a lot of money to churches, 
little old widows, and

[[Page 25291]]

help neighborhood families in need. That's a good thing, right?''
    Him: ``Right''.
    Me: ``Do you think the maffia, -over all, is a good thing for 
society?''
    Him: ``Well, no...''
    Me: ``Well, considering you invested a lot of money in the 
maffia stock, where now do your loyalties lie? Do you think the 
Justice Department should leave the maffia alone, because they give 
a lot of money to churches, etc., and pay you a healthy dividend? Or 
should the Justice Department do what is necessary to prevent the 
maffia from doing harm?''
    In case you don't understand my alegory:
    Sure, Microsoft gives away millions to schools; -for a fantastic 
tax deduction no doubt. Microsoft, it has finally been officially 
determined, also stiffles competition, strong-arms vendors, and 
generally, -acts like the maffia! Break them up!
    Dan Jerry
    Actively envolved with the ``micro computer'' since 1978, and an 
avid industry historian and intentional observer.
    553 Beartown Road
    West Chazy, NY 12992



MTC-00010311

From: Daniel A. Myerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  4:55pm
Subject: Settlement
    The attack by the justice department was unjust. How could any 
settlement be called unjust in those circumtances? Dan Myerson



MTC-00010312

From: Mark Overholser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:01pm
Subject: Get off their case!
    I'm sick of you jack-booted courtroom thugs at the Department of 
Justice pursuing this poppycock at a time when there should be 
PLENTY of legitimate bad guys out there for you to spend OUR money 
chasing.
    Get off Microsoft's case. That company may not be the 
friendliest ``neighbor'' in the corporate 'hood, but they put many 
thousands of people to work and pay their corporate taxes on 
time...and if people don't like the company, they don't have to buy 
its products.
    Clinton's gone now, it's okay for you to stop wasting OUR money 
on YOUR ideologically-driven left wing witch hunts again.



MTC-00010313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a supporter of Microsoft. This alligation has gone on too 
long. Microsoft has made sufficient changes to there software and 
operating procedures. Do you want the last ounce of blood?
    Robert



MTC-00010314

From: Andrew Warren
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Andrew Warren
    POB 476
    New Tripoli, Pa 18066
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    A J Warren



MTC-00010315

From: Richard L. Joslin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:04pm
Subject: Short sighted vision relative to Microsoft fiasco
    It appears to me that the United States Justice Department has 
been very short sighted in what the Microsoft Corporation has done 
for the ``home user'' and to the overall balance of payments to the 
US Treasury. Go ahead and kill them off and create a reason for them 
to leave the U. S. and you will be responsible for more of a problem 
than settling the case now. The Clinton administration created the 
mess to cover up for the presidents wrong doings and get the ``heat 
off'' him and now you are just proliferating a non problem. Where 
else could a small time user like me get a desk top software setup 
so cheaply and made in the USA? You guys are not solving the 
problem, just adding to it in my opinion.
    You are all alike. Kill any one who makes a dollar and at the 
same time take away the little guys software while pretending to 
represent him.
    Richard L. Joslin
    18416 SE 280th St.
    Kent Washington,
    98042
    Registered Republican voter



MTC-00010316

From: Thomas Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:05pm
Subject: settlement
    I believe that a dollar amount from Microsoft should be reached 
for the schools and let the teachers decide which computer systems 
(Microsoft or Apple) to use. It is imperative that money be provided 
to the ``poor schools''. These kids from low income families are 
falling further and further behind the rest of the nation relative 
to technology knowledge and many of these kids are intelligent and 
deserve an opportunity to compete at a higher level.
    Although I am not an owner of Microsoft stock, I am the CEO of a 
company that spends over $100,000 annually on software (most of 
which are Microsoft products) and hardware. I would not approve the 
purchase of any other office software other than Microsoft's. I 
believe the current settlement with the Justice department is 
satisfactory while nine (I think) States are trying to hinder 
Microsoft so that competitive companies in each State will have a 
better chance at survival. I think the Justice department should ban 
these States from further litigation against Microsoft. Let software 
companies compete against each other and the best products will win. 
This is the way our economy is setup to work!
    Thomas W. Hill
    [email protected]>



MTC-00010317

From: Kent, Mike
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and computer software and hardware 
professor, I am concerned that the proposed settlement will amount 
to little more that a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. In fact, the 
proposed settlement may well allow Microsoft to strengthen its hold 
in the education market. Microsoft is a monopoly. It has used its 
dominate position to stop its completion.
    The remedy must be to break up the company or destroy its 
ability to crush its competition in illegal and monopolistic ways. 
There is fledgling and growing competition to Microsoft. In the past 
Microsoft has been able to crush its completion by intimidation or 
illegal ways.
    Please act. The future of innovation and diversity in the 
computer industry may well depend on it.
    Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
    Mike Kent
    Department Chair
    Computer Information Systems
    San Jacinto College, Central Campus
    [email protected]



MTC-00010318

From: Carl Friedberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:15pm
Subject: Proposed settlement
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200

[[Page 25292]]

    Washington, DC 20530
    Facsimile: (202)616-9937 or (202) 307-1454
    Email: [email protected]
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    I am a physicist who has worked with computers, computer 
operating systems, and applications, since 1961. I am not a legal 
specialist. I have read carefully the proposed settlement between 
some of the states and the US, and Microsoft.
    I am astounded that, although found guilty of violating the 
Anti-Trust statutes, there is no direct provision for any punishment 
of Microsoft.
    The only recourse I have is to initiate civil litigation against 
Microsoft in the hope of recovering treble damages. Because of the 
difficulty and expense of such litigation, this recourse is of 
little use or value to any user who has suffer damage from 
Microsoft's Windows monopoly, and the resulting lack of choice in 
the desktop marketplace.
    We, the users of desktop computer operating systems, deserve 
better from our government. Where is Microsoft being punished for 
willful, illegal actions? Forcing them to open up certain Windows 
and Middleware APIs is not punishment; it is merely an attempt to 
slow them down from increasing their 95% dominance in the 
marketplace to 100% dominance.
    I hope the Honorable Judge of the US Court will take into 
account the concerns of those states which are not parties to the 
proposed settlement, and punish the guilty party here. Microsoft 
deserves significant punishment; there is none, that I can see, in 
the proposed settlement.
    Restraining future monopolistic activities is essential, because 
Microsoft is a huge force in this marketplace, and has reaped 
enormous improper gains.
    Just look at the amount of cash Microsoft has accumulated, which 
can be used at will to thwart legitimate competitors. Even a casual 
reading of the US tax code suggests that the amount of cash amassed 
by Microsoft exceeds a reasonable number, and should instead be 
distributed as dividends to shareholders (and taxed). This solution, 
while perhaps a bit stretched in legal terms, could certainly be 
held over Microsoft's head as a stick--and they could agree to 
declare some dividend (perhaps only $10 or 20 billion dollars per 
year) as a token of punishment for their illegal behavior. What a 
punishment!
    I hope you will consider some appropriate form of punishment, in 
addition to the proposed restraints.
    Thank you.
    Carl E. Friedberg, PhD
    President & CEO
    Comet & Company
    New York NY
    www.comets.com



MTC-00010319

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Decision
    I agree with the Court's decision.
    Period!
    Fred H. Dissen
    6208 Clearbrook Drive
    Flowery Branch, GA 30542



MTC-00010320

From: Mary Salaja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:23pm
Subject: microsoft case
    What are you thinking. Since when does the criminal get to 
decide and possibly profit from committing a crime. You need to look 
past the fact that MS is a corporation and focus on the fact that it 
has been convicted of a crime. Therefore, the PUNISHMENT should make 
certain that it is not in a postion to continue its CRIMINAL 
activities. Besides, isn't competition suppose to be the American 
way.
    J. Salaja



MTC-00010321

From: Jim (038) Widget Webert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:24pm
Subject: MSFT settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    email: [email protected]
    Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937

    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme 
critics complain that the remedies do not address products that were 
not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly. I believe in advancing free market competition and 
this settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    James Webert
    POB 2776
    Friday Harbor, WA 98250



MTC-00010322

From: dorothy smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    A SWIFT SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COUNTRY. 
MICROSOFT CUSTOMERS AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. PLEASE END IT. 
KINDEST REGARDS.
    God Bless You!
    Dorothy C. Smith
    [email protected]



MTC-00010323

From: Gene Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:35pm
Subject: My experience with Microsoft

11 January, 2002

[[Page 25293]]

Ref: My experience with Microsoft

    Dear Justice Department,
    I use Microsoft's word, excel and access software programs and 
Microsoft's OUTLOOK 2000 email program. I use these every working 
day and also at home. My job is to support agents in 75 countries.
    I urge you to take a stong hand with Microsoft and force them to 
be more compatible with competing software companies and to cease 
the practice of forcing upgrades to their software products. Their 
marketing practice of designing their products so that upgrades are 
forced on their customers is, very often, unnecessary, expensive, 
causes delay and increases the cost of doing business.
    A specific example is Internet Explorer 98 which I have on my 
home computer. It will not access secure websites (I cannot use it 
to order goods and services online). I have to use NETSCAPE to place 
orders online. I cannot upgrade Explorer 98--Microsoft will not let 
me. Two computer repair services have advised me that I must wipe my 
computer clean and then reinstall Explorer 98 or install a later 
version.
    Another example is the practice of upgrading Microsoft word in 
such a way that attachments to email sent to recipients who have a 
lower version of Word cannot open the attacment; they must purchase 
a word attachment for their computer in order to open the documents 
in your new version of word. These practices are petty, demeaning 
and are low level marketing tactics unbecoming of a major US 
company.
    Best Regards,
    Gene Williams
    Marketing Director
    GLOBALTEL
    1801 North Military Trail, Suite 203
    Boca Raton, Florida 33431-1811 USA
    Tel: (561) 999-9116, Extension 112
    Tel: (800) 219-9545, Extension 112
    Fax: (561) 999-0518
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Website: www.GlobalTel.com



MTC-00010324

From: james arnstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I think the DOJ and the 9 states entered into the anti trust 
settlement is obsessed to see how far they can carry out this case. 
Microsoft has had sufficient penalties levied against it. It seems 
to me that we all need to get on with our ``business at hand,''. 
Everything that continues to go on now, seems like a ``cheap shot'' 
at Microsoft as long as it is forced to ``tippy toe'' around until 
the settlement is completed.
    James Arnstein



MTC-00010325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft's punishment
    Gentlemen.
    I find it remarkable that the government thinks that an 
appropriate punishment for a convicted monopolist is to effectively 
increase their sales by a billion dollars and give them free access 
to markets they had previously been unable to force their way into. 
If the government isn't going to break the company up and is 
considering a $1B fine, I would offer the following suggestion.
    1. The $1B has to be all cash, not one single microsoft product. 
The money should all be spent buying Apples, Suns, and tech support 
for non-Microsoft operating systems (getting rid of those microsoft 
worm, virus, and crash prone IIS machines would probably do the net 
a world of good). This would give Apple (where microsoft stole most 
of their really good ideas) a boost. Getting the schools out of the 
cost cycle associated with microsoft's monoply inflated prices and 
into Linux would give them a more virus resistant system and help 
them in the long run (Linux is about $75, Windows about $400--go 
figure).
    2. Microsoft should be required to make a version of all their 
software (i.e. MS Office, etc) for all operating systems i.e. Apple 
, Linux, Unix, Sun OS etc. Most application providers provide 
versions of their products for various different operating systems 
but not microsoft. This would force them to make less tightly 
interlinked software (and would actually improve it's performance) 
as well as help break the vertical monoply they currently enjoy.
    3. The government is a major purchaser of microsoft operating 
systems and software. Under normal circumstances, the government 
will not purchase things that do not conform to standards (IEEE, 
ANSI, ISO, etc). I cannot think of a single microsoft product that 
does not violate one standard or another. Indeed, one of their 
monopolistic stratagies has been to make extentions, i.e. 
modifications to standards, to make them unique to microsoft and, 
therefore, incompatible with products that do meet the standards. 
This was the basis of a lawsuit from Sun over Java. Microsoft's 
response was to eliminate Java from their latest operating 
application, doubtless figuring that they had adequate muscle to 
ignore all the applications that use Java. When it comes to 
microsoft, the government is ignoring their own rules regarding 
standards compliance. The government should stop doing this. They 
should tell microsoft that they will not purchase a single MS 
product that violates a widely accepted standard. I doubt that 
microsoft could afford to lose the government's business and it 
would break that monopolistic practice.
    Jeffrey P. Harrison
    900 South Third St.
    St. Charles, Mo. 63301-2402



MTC-00010326

From: hawk eye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:50pm
    comw on get it over msn gives away services to the talking about 
giving away comptures to education, seems like the goverment neds to 
worrie about what is not working with inside its self I know i work 
for the goverment fix what is not working right ,clean it up, the 
ppl of the US are tired of the goverment going after something that 
is working right,did u all think that msn might just laying off ppl 
if u hit them hard come on go after real crime, what about polution 
from big companys ,wish the goverment spend as much time going after 
that than msn get real ppl let msn give education free comtures and 
tell then what not to do



MTC-00010327

From: Rich Faltisco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:50pm
Subject: Keep Going After Microsoft
    Dear Friends,
    The latest version of Microsoft Windows--XP--points out all that 
is wrong with Microsoft.
    First, the price keeps going up and up for the operating system. 
Now literally priced fixed at one hundred dollars, what real 
alternative does the home user have to XP? And certainly privacy has 
been thrown out the proverbial window. I really don't like big 
brother Bill Gates ready to gather all kinds of information on my 
computer if i load up XP. Thirdly, Windows is a programming 
nighmare. I don't believe anyone but Microsoft knows all the hooks 
to the code.
    Stability--IBM's OS/2 was a stable operating years ago. I 
believe Microsoft could have done this with Windows years ago, and 
not now with XP. Several years ago i loaded up IBM's Os/2 Warp in 
parallel to Windows. As i did so, I got a message from Microsoft 
asking if i really wanted to do this. Pretty bizarre and pretty 
small, i would say. And i think that is the attitude still 
indicative to Microsoft today.
    Thank you for your time,
    Rich Faltisco



MTC-00010328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have spent some time looking at the Settlement between the 
DOJ/State AGs and Microsoft. While i have serious doubts about the 
wisdom of bringing this lawsuit in the first place and whereas i 
have some reservations about the strength and precendent of the 
remedies I certainly want this whole nightmare behind us. It s time 
for those of us in the high-tech industry to get back to work. 
Thanks. I know it took a lot of sweat and long hours to produce. 
Americans are grateful for that. Tim



MTC-00010330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft/Justice Department settlement is a 
great things for consumers worldwide. I congratulate both Microsoft 
and the DOJ for finally being flexible enough to get there. It is 
important that the balance of innovation and customer benefit as 
well as openness of Windows is there. Congratulations again on the 
settlement.



MTC-00010331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm

[[Page 25294]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the ruling between Microsoft and the settlement of 
November 2001 be the end of all litagation proceedings.



MTC-00010332

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the entire antitrust suit should be dropped. However 
as this is obviously not going to happen I fully support the quick 
resoulution of this case and the proposed settlement. Any additional 
punishment of Microsoft would be a crime in my view simply because I 
feel that they did no wrong. Additionally I feel that this entire 
antitrust fiasco was an entirely anti-competitive move by both the 
DOJ and Microsofts comptitors such as AOL and Sun. Additionally I 
feel that this case was one of the primary causes of the current 
enconomic downturn. Thank you for your time.



MTC-00010333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THIS SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY ALL PARTIES INCLUDING THE 
VARIOUS STATES. THE SETTLEMENT IS MORE THAN FAIR TO COMSUMERS AND 
MICROSOFT S COMPETITION.



MTC-00010334

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft and our free enterprise system alone! This case 
should have never been in the first place. Let the consumers decide 
in the marketplace which companies are the winners and which ones 
are the losers. I resent government interference in thinking they 
know better than us who have been in the information technology 
business for years. We are talking about a $99 operating system that 
nobody is forced to buy if they don t want it (the IRS takes much 
more than that away from us by the use of force and coercion and we 
don t get anything back in return). Consumers can always use the 
free operating system called Linux along with its free web browser. 
Any new features Microsoft puts into their operating system is 
purely for their own survival. Live and let live! I thank Microsoft 
for driving down prices so that the common person can understand and 
afford technology. If you punish them then our government is no 
better than a communist dictatorship which desires to own and 
control all business! The shame of it all is that Microsoft s 
competitors refused to offer better products at lower prices and 
instead resorted to government coercion and force. What a sad day 
for American liberty! If government is truly looking out for the 
consumers as they say they are then leave Microsoft alone! Answer 
this question--how many complaints have you heard from the consumers 
themselves (the very persons government claims to be protecting)?



MTC-00010335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft s competitors seek more litigation for obvious 
reasons. Their products simply don t stack up to those of Microsoft. 
So they use this method to attempt to weaken one of the best of 
United States companies. Consumers around the world are better off 
because of Microsoft. The settlement is fair and equitable. Let s 
end this ridiculous and costly litigation.



MTC-00010336

From: [email protected]. edu@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A fair and reasonable settlement.



MTC-00010337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    it is in my beleaf that Microsoft is being as fair as possible. 
I DO NOT THINK ITS RIGHT THAT OTHER BUSINESS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 
mICROSOFTS HARD EARNT ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLIGIES. IF THESE OTHER 
COMPANYS WANT TO HAVE SUCCESFUL BUSINESS THEN LET THEM ESTABLISH 
THERE OWN TEAM OF TECHNICIANS AND CREATE THERE OWN TECHNOLIGIES 
INSTEAD OF CRYING FOUL AND WANTING SOMEONE ELSES ALREADY FORMED 
TECHNOLIGIES.YES ITS TRUE MICROSOFT HAS MANY ADVANCEMENTS BUT THEY 
EARNT THEM THE HARD WAY THEY WORKED FOR THEM. I THINK ITS WRONG FOR 
THE GOVERNMENT TO WANT TO BREAK A BUSINESS UP BECAUSE A CERTAIN 
INDIVIDUAL HAS A PERSONNEL AGENDA AGAINST MICROSOFT. I WATCHED AT&T 
BROKE UP BY GOVERNMENT AND LOOK ITS COSTING EVERYONE MORE MONEY. 
WHICH I BELEIVE IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. OTHER BUSINESS AND 
GOVERNMENT WANTING A PIECE OF SOMEONES HARD EARNT MONIES.Is it Bill 
Gates fault that he is sucessful? yes it is!! he and his company 
worked hard for there achevements. so thats my story and let it be 
said that if other business and people want to make microsofts 
profits then let them earn them the old fashion way! work for them 
themselves and not try to have government step in when it is really 
not of concern to goverment unless they too found a way to make free 
money from others .
    respectible
    Robert A Werner



MTC-00010338

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We don t want to go back wards with technology. Leave Microsoft 
alone and let them go ahead with new software technology. It s not 
microsoft s fault that they have better program s. If I wanted to go 
backwards I could go with the other programs anytime. Thank You Al 
Neff Sr.



MTC-00010339

From: chris--crabtree@shoneys. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: The times and the technology have moved 
on. You should too. Let s stop listening to those companies who have 
trouble competing on an even playing field and have done with this. 
Thanks!



MTC-00010340

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my support for the Microsoft-Department of 
Justice settlement. I believe the settlement is fair and provides a 
reasonable end to curbing antitrust behavior of Microsoft while 
allowing them to continue to innovate in a very competitive and 
sometimes cutthroat arena of the computer software business. I 
applaud the DOJ s willingness to settle this case during our current 
economic recession and move on. It is clear that the dissenting 
states have prevented the previous attempt to settle this case out 
of court. I feel the settlement is fair. Thank you for your 
consideration. Robert A. Schor M.D.



MTC-00010341

From: bradley--bobbs@xontech. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put an end to the ridiculous harrassment of Microsoft 
already and go bother someone instead who is actually doing 
something wrong! Thank you.



MTC-00010342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop trying to CRIPPLE Microsoft. The software innovations by 
this incredible company have added fuel to our economy creating jobs 
and allowing workers to be more productive. Workers like myself who 
use Microsoft software everyday and appreciate the beauty with which 
its applications work together. Sincerely Dolores Freund



MTC-00010343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is too easy for Microsoft to disregard and 
continue monopolizing our lives. Microsoft needs to be puinished for 
destroying the consumers right to freedom. Make Microsoft feel some 
of the pain they have leveraged on others for so many years.



MTC-00010344

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25295]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bring this case to an end and don t permit state DA s to go off 
on their own anti-Microsoft crusade.



MTC-00010345

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair if anything it is unfair to Microsoft. I 
think it is a darn shame when a young boy can make the American 
dream come true and the vulchers of other companies(competitors)can 
use our legal system to try to eleminate the competition. As a 
matter of fact the legal system should penalize the competitors and 
the lawyers that are bringing the suit against Microsoft however I 
realize that Judges are lawyers so we know that the fair thing will 
never be done. The only way it will ever be fair is to get the money 
grubbing lawyers out of it and let a non-lawyer good American 
citizen make the ruling.



MTC-00010346

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    America is the land of oppertunity in which your future lays in 
your hands. Granted Microsoft has engauged in vary tough marketing 
practices in a vary cut throat business. Welcome to America where 
the best are the best and second place is second place. The 
competitors of Microsoft are tring to use the Justice Department to 
restrict the leader to gain marketshare. If the actions that 
Microsoft s competitors are taken then a precedent will be set that 
will lead to other outragous lawsuites clogging the courts and 
harming the free market. Their is nothing stopping anyone from 
developing and deploying a better software thatn Microsoft. It is 
just no one have developed a better software. When that is done and 
history leads us to beleive it will be done then America will have a 
new #1 software company. Stick to what Microsoft has done wrong and 
apply constraints to Microsoft to prevent just those areas of 
opperation are not repeated.



MTC-00010347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please for the sake of fairness and economics settlethis suit 
now cg.



MTC-00010348

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The plaintiffs clearly have no concept of ethics they are not 
interested in fairness justice or the well being of their fellow 
citizens or of the economy. They are crude gold-diggers out for a 
quick buck. Surely the buck stops here.



MTC-00010349

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement with Microsoft and hope this matter can 
be brought to an end without Microsoft s competitors being able to 
sabotage the proceedings as they have been doing. For the good our 
our country and technological innovation let s move ahead and put 
this behind us.



MTC-00010350

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is in the best interest of this country to get this 
case settled with all parties concerned and move on. The case never 
should have been brought.



MTC-00010351

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs, I am opposed to any settlement with MS that does not 
allow full access by the customer to software of his choice, this 
would be like telling a person what brand of trailer he could tow on 
the end of his truck, and what kind of hitch he had to use. I also 
use plug in drives for differant accounts, and do not what to have 
to repeatedly contact MS for reactivation. Also the open software 
movement, would be where Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and 
Bejamin Franklen would be today.
    Respectfully Lee Dambrosky
    Rapid City, SD



MTC-00010352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In our opinion this whole charade has been an enormous waste of 
taxpayers capital deployed in a misguided effort to protect a few 
companies like Sun Microsystems AOL-Time Warner and Oracle Corp.
    Please end this waste. Thank you Scott Cuddihy



MTC-00010353

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle-this thing has gone on long enough and it offends me that 
my taxpayer money is going to support this riduculous case



MTC-00010354

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off Microsoft s back. Settle now. Settlement is fair.



MTC-00010355

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel any more litagation against Microsoft should be dropped 
totally and forever. We now know that Janet Reno was more interested 
in going after MSFT than bin Laden. The whiners in Silicon Valley 
need to be told to build a better mousetrap if they want to compete. 
The consumer (me) is the only one who will be harmed by any further 
litigation. Meanwhile the attorneys are the only people who win.



MTC-00010356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let Microsoft alone. Together we can fight political 
corruption throughout our government.
    Thank you



MTC-00010357

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    11 Jan 2002 The settlement agreements are fair and equitable. 
Now let s approve them and get back to business.



MTC-00010358

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft antitrust litigation as soon as 
possible. The drain on your resources and the world economy is 
immeasurable. Let s get it over with and move on.



MTC-00010359

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion it is time to drop all complaints against 
Microsoft. The Microsoft Company has done more to increase 
productivity and efficiency in the American workforce than any other 
single entity in the entire history of the United States. The entire 
case against Microsoft by a group of mis-guided Attorneys General 
and cometitors who lacked quality products signifies one very 
important fact to me: if you can t beat the competition find a 
lawyer who will do his darndest to sue. I don t think that is the 
American way. Our world dominance in computer software is due to the 
excellent foresight and long term strategic planning of Microsoft. 
Any and all legal action against the Microsoft Corp. should be 
immediately terminated.



MTC-00010360

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AM WRITING THIS AS I BELIEVE IN WHAT EVERYONE CALLS THE 
AMERICAN WAY . WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE PROMOTERS OF FREE ENTERPRISE 
AND INITIATIVE. MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES TOOK THIS ENTREPRENEUAL 
TACT AND

[[Page 25296]]

HAVE NOW BEEN PUNISHED FOR IT. I DO UNDERSTAND THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS 
BUT FEEL THAT THESE LAWS WERE MADE AT A TIME THEY WERE NEEDED. A LOT 
OF LAWS BECOME OUTDATED. I BELIEVE SOME OF THESE ANTI-TURST LAWS 
HAVE DONE JUST THAT. THE LAW IS THE LAW HOWEVER SO JUSTICE WAS 
SERVED AND SENTENCE PRONOUNCED. LET THIS REST. THE COMPETITERS ARE 
JUST SORRY THAT THEY WERE NOT THE ONES WITH THE IDEAS. ALL THESE 
ANTI-TRUST LAWSUITS HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT HURT THE CONSUMER AND THE 
ECONOMY. THE DEREGULATION DUE TO ANT-TURST LAWS HAS COST THE 
CONSUMER AND COUNTRY TREMEMDOUSLY IN GAS ELECTRIC COMMUNICATIONS AND 
NOW TECHNOLOGY. WHEN WILL IT END. I PERSONALLY THINK ONLY WHEN THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF OUR COUNTRY DEEMS THESE ANTIQUATED ANTI-TRUST 
LAWS NULL AND VOID AND WHEN THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT OF OUR 
COUNTRY MAKES LAWS THAT PREVENT FRIVILOUS LAWSUITS. THANK YOU FOR 
ASKING FOR THE EVERYDAY CONSUMER S OPINION.



MTC-00010361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wholeheartedly support the settlement as currently negotiated 
with the DOJ. I believe that both parties have made concessions and 
the settlement appropriately reflects the substantially narrowed 
ruling as handed down by the unanimous Appeals Court. It is time to 
move on. The hold-out states are simply acting in the interests of 
Microsoft competitors based in their states and are not acting on 
the behalf of the consumer. It is in the interest of consumers to 
have this case settled and behind us all. Let innovation and 
competition flourish again in the tech industry without the heavy 
hand of government interference. Werner Baron



MTC-00010362

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement approved by the Department of 
Justice and 9 state attorneys general should be approved. While I 
think the settlement is burdonsome and harsh on Microsoft I think it 
is best to close this case and concentrate our regulation efforts on 
things that REALLY matter to consumers--such as home energry prices 
gasoline prices in the northwest United States monopolies in the 
cable television industry etc.--rather than trying to punish a 
successful company for being successful. I would sincerely hope that 
in the future federal anti-trust statutes are used to protect 
consumers rather than to help failed competitors compete.



MTC-00010363

From: jason.langdon@haverstick consulting.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for taking the time to hear my opinion. Let me begin 
by mentioning that I have worked in the online design industry for 
over five years. In my opinion Microsoft has been an extremely 
productive and dynamic company determined to deliver solutions to 
the largest and smallest problems alike. I know the value of their 
innovations firsthand. That is why I feel it is important that the 
case against Microsoft be closed as soon as possible. We are at a 
point as a country and a global community that we need the 
innovations that companies like Microsoft offer now more than ever. 
The agreement addresses all of the valid concerns that initiated the 
action against Microsoft. Let s please move on and let Microsoft get 
back to strengthening the economy.



MTC-00010364

From: JAMES GRAVIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft settlement that was reached. Thank you.
    James C. Gravis,
    15707 Echo Canyon Dr.
    Houston, Tx., 77084-3116



MTC-00010365

From: George
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:02pm
Subject: M$
    I agree with U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz statements--
and he is absolutely correct when he states Microsoft overcharges 
for it's products. It is gross anti-competive behavior. There are 
many excellent software companies who are unable to compete until 
the playing field is level.
    George Cochrane
    Tooele, Utah



MTC-00010366

From: George S. Forde, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please see attached letter
    CC: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network
    8401 Seminole Street
    PHILADELPHIA, PA 19118-3725
    [215] 242-8332 (voice) [email protected]
    [215] 242-1475 (facsimile) PA Atty. ID # 02820
    [2151 284-1739 (cellular)
    Sunday, 27 January, 2002
    FACSIMILIE & E-Mail 1

Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear General Ashcroft,
    Public opinion regarding the settlement of the antitrust case 
between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice has been 
solicited. I offer this opinion as one who has been an interested 
user of computers for personal and business purposes since 1978 
(before there was a Microsoft). This has made me a bit of a student 
of industry and, eventually, an investor in technology. So, I must 
admit to significant [for me] holding in MSFT--as well as in 
companies that might be considered to be its antagonists in this 
matter. Still, I am not an apologist for Microsoft and believe that, 
on balance, I must agree with the presentation of this settlement 
made to the Judiciary Committee by Mr. James of your office on 12 
December.
    Microsoft is a monopoly. Paradoxically, I believe it got there, 
in part, with the help of competitors like Apple, 2 IBM 3 and others 
who just failed to properly market sometimes superior product. 
Contrary to its claims, 4 the company is not particularly 
innovative, and its first offerings of its [E.g., MultiPlan, DOS, 
Windows, Excel, Explorer, and so on] have been acquired and, at 
first, poorly implemented compared to others [Such as VisiCalc, 
Lotus, or Resolve; CP/M and MacOS; Netscape...].
    However, Microsoft rather than being anti-competitive is hyper-
competitive. It learns from its mistakes and is increasingly better 
at execution of the ideas, whatever the source, and it continually 
improves on them. It delivers what the consumer demands [eventually] 
at a [hopefully] reasonable cost. For it own good, Microsoft cannot 
afford to have the rivals all go away, though many have. Neither the 
Department nor the defendant got all the marbles at end of this 
case. That's the nature of a legal settlement. What has been crafted 
seems, to me, to serve the best interests of the public and the 
industry.
    * Note: Due to the Excite@Home bankruptcy, this address will be 
inoperative after 2/28/02; from 3/1/02 forward (possibly earlier), 
please use [email protected].
    1 Signed original available on request
    2 Which bundled the MS spreadsheet ``MultiPlan'' with the first 
Macs.
    3 Which opened the PC Jr to DOS.
    4 But do really like Mr. Gates, based on a couple of brief 
encounters at a local users' group and more distant observation over 
the years. He and Microsoft have done a great deal for all computer 
users.
    One thing to remember is that, while the focus of the case has 
been the ``Wintel World,'' and allegations of maintenance of the OS 
monopoly; however, the market is much larger than that. For example, 
while I use both Widows and MacOS, I very much prefer the latter, 
but I use the same Microsoft applications [I.E. and Office] on both 
platforms.
    I am concerned, therefore, that a separate settlement by the 
non-joining states--if it follows the path offered to them by 
Microsoft--would actually weaken the effect of this settlement by 
making those states accomplices in plan to cannibalize the Apple 
[and other] share of the education market. No need to spell out the 
obvious here, but, if the states want compensation, it should be 
paid outright or in the form of grants to technological projects and 
spending not defined by the defendant. If possible, those states 
should not be allowed to make a separate peace that would undermine 
this one.

[[Page 25297]]

    Sincerely,
    George S. Forde, Jr.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    (facsimile only)
    Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate Network
    (facsimile only)



MTC-00010367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to approve the settlement. I believe this lawsuit was 
more about milking political support than about protecting the 
consumer. GET IT DONE for the sake of us all!!



MTC-00010369

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my strong belief that this settlement is in the best 
interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy and 
especially consumers. Since the settlement newspaper editorials from 
across the nation and across the ideological spectrum have endorsed 
the settlement. Please don t let a few special interest groups 
prevent this settlement from going though. Sincerely Rich Otterstrom



MTC-00010370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Governments settlement is fair and no further action should 
be taken. It seems everyone wants to make a name for themselves as a 
giant killer. Its sad. I believe in our Justice System and the 
ruling should stand and no further actions should be taken. Thank 
you for reading my opinion.



MTC-00010371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I whole heartedly support this settlement. I do not believe that 
Microsoft illegally leveraged its dominance in the software industry 
to harm competitors but I steadfastly believe that the education 
system could use the one billion. If they want to invest in the 
future of America yet again I m behind it.
    Don



MTC-00010372

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this lawsuit with Microsoft and let them get 
back to providing jobs and opportunities for its workers. Without 
companies like Microsoft we wouldn t have good jobs for people. Let 
the free enterprise system work. Thank you.



MTC-00010373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed this case fairly closely and I am still unable 
to determine just who was damaged! From the beginning it has 
appeared that Microsoft s competitors have used the courts to 
provide a competitive advantage for themselves. My earliest 
involvement with microcomputers was with an Imsi 8080 which I built 
from a kit back in 1977. The very best software available for that 
machine was Microsoft Basic. The name Microsoft has always provided 
me with quality products at what I considered very reasonable 
prices. In fact I believe that it was Microsoft s vision of Windows 
that enabled the microcomputer revolution in this country and the 
rest of the world. It was a point and click interface that could be 
made to run on just about any IBM generic computer. Apple had a 
similar (some may say superior) interface but it was only available 
on Apple s pricy equipment. Microsoft s hard work brought computing 
to the masses by putting Windows on the desktop. I am a happy 
consumer. I have always used Microsoft Internet Explorer and I have 
never been overcharged by Microsoft or damaged by using it. That s 
the point!! Who has been damaged? Microsoft s competitors? If that 
is the case will the Federal Courts go to bat for me when I have to 
bid against one of the Big Five accounting firms for auditing work? 
I doubt it and I would not expect it. This whole case appears to be 
another case of the state pigs feeding at the trough of private 
profits. It sickens me!



MTC-00010374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Microsoft settlement as published on the web. The 
settlement is fair and adequately addresses plaintiffs original 
complaints.



MTC-00010375

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government s case against Microsoft has never had more than 
marginal merit. The case has now been brought to a reasonable and 
fair conclusion and should not be pursued further except as 
specifically dictated by the settlement.



MTC-00010376

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get government out of our economies greatest opportunity 
for growth and advancement so that capitalism can thrive.



MTC-00010377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The only thing this lawsuit is doing is impeading the progress 
of the technology sector it is only a matter of time before other 
countrys are leading the way and dominating what we are taking for 
granted.We should always go forward and never go back.



MTC-00010378

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that this litigation has been going on long 
enough and been a great detriment to our economy. It is time to 
bring it to a close.



MTC-00010379

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I absolutely believe that Microsoft has been a positive 
contributor to the American economy and certainly affected my work 
in a most positive way. I am getting tired of Microsoft competitors 
drawing out settlement of a case that never should have been brought 
in the first place. The objections of Microsoft s competitors are 
completely self-serving and never related to the matter at hand.



MTC-00010380

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US economy has been on hold too long already. Please approve 
the settlement so everyone can move on to more important things.



MTC-00010381

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is more than fair. Settle this thing NOW!



MTC-00010382

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement the Justice Department negotiated 
with Microsoft. The computer industry business community and 
consumers need this issue settled today. Please do what you can to 
lay this matter to rest. Thank you Bedford Peterson 
HOPCONSULTING.COM



MTC-00010383

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly supportive of the settlement the government and 
Microsoft reached.It is time to bring an end to this litigation.



MTC-00010384

From: paul sidler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs: We support the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. 
Please stop wasting taxpayers' money and stop penalizing success. 
Thank you,

[[Page 25298]]

    Paul & Mary Sidler



MTC-00010385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has proven to be a great innovator. A settlement has 
been reached. Go with it. The sooner that the cloud hanging over 
this great company is handled the sooner our national economy can 
start moving again. The economy of the country has been downhill 
ever since the Clinton/Reno Injustice Dept. began its attack against 
Microsoft. It s time to put that abuse of power to rest.



MTC-00010386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As consumer I benefit greatly from the cheaper and cheaper PC 
and software prices from Microsoft. Let the competition take care of 
itself in the market place. Microsoft competitors should compete on 
merit and not use political influence to prop them up. I am so sick 
and tired of seeing a great company being damaged by the misguided 
previous Justice Department.
    Sincerely.



MTC-00010387

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I favor the Microsoft Settlement. Please proceed.



MTC-00010388

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I believe it is time to end the litigation against 
Microsoft. I believe that the settlement currently agreed upon is 
enough. The marketplace is changing and I believe it s time for 
Microsoft's competitors to compete instead of litigating against 
them.
    Thank You



MTC-00010389

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Quit wasting tax payer funds fighting about ways to impeed 
business and start working together on ways to improve it.



MTC-00010390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is an odd time that we live in where companies that fall 
short in innovation and marketing skills attempt and often succeed 
by having the DOJ do their dirty work. I feel that any delays in 
this action and/or further punative action towards Microsoft will 
have a harmful effect on me the consumer. Microsoft has always in my 
opinion offered me affordable and good quality products. And the 
marketplace is always the best judge. If in fact consumers did not 
believe this OS/2 WordPerfect AmiPro Lotus etc. would all be the 
market leaders. Linux may in time actually succeed at this.



MTC-00010391

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud the long overdue settlement and completely agree with 
it. The suit has hurt the ecomony in many ways and should have been 
settled years ago.



MTC-00010392

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current settlement proposal is more than 
reasonable. It has never been shown that the consumer was in any way 
harmed by Microsoft s actions. Certainly they are a tough competitor 
but it is clear to me that the consumer has been enormously well 
served by Microsoft.



MTC-00010393

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly beleive that the settlement aggreement reached in the 
antitrust case against Microsoft is both a reasonable and fair 
solution to the matter and urge you to support it rather than 
continuing the litigation process.
    Best regards.



MTC-00010394

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A settlement that is very tough on Microsoft has been reached 
but the competition of Microsoft will not stop. The only reason for 
all of this was brought by Competitors of Microsoft who could not 
overtake Microsoft in regular business methods so they got the 
government to cost Microsoft a lot of money and to stop them from 
doing research and development. They had to stop regular business 
and just defend themselves from the government who is acting on 
behalf of Microsoft competitors. Enough is enough. Put a stop to 
this and let one of our major resources go back to developing and 
manufacturing.
    Thanks.



MTC-00010395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft law suits should all be settled basis the Nov. 4 
2001 settlement proposal or the actions of the nine remaining states 
be thrown out of court as they actually represent the efforts of 
competitors to harm Microsoft.



MTC-00010396

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs and ma ams I m not a high educated man. I m not a rich 
man. I don t begrudge any of this against anyone. I m happy where I 
am and don t need anything more but the decision brought against M$ 
is in my opinion far too lenient almost to the point of it being 
ludicrous. I just can t see any punishment being done to a company 
who *KNEW* it is/was doing wrong by letting them advertise their 
software OS in millions of schools. And this is exactly what I see 
it to be. A slap on the wrist and a way for them to take over even 
more areas so that if this problem was to pop up again down the road 
it would be even harder for the DOJ to fight. Why is it that an 
honest working man if he were found doing what M$ has done and 
because he doesn't have anything near the money to protect himself 
like M$ does would be darn near burned at the stake and ruined for 
the rest of his life? I see the government falling to its knees in 
just plain weariment and letting M$ just go about its business as 
long as they behave themselves from now on . This scares me and it 
should scare all peoples of this country. Why not just make *more* 
new laws saying they can't do that and if they do it again we'll 
slap em on the wrist again (this was some of my sarcasm). I know my 
word don't mean much but this is *my* country I have to live with 
the ridiculousness of the decision so far and have to suffer for it 
all because someone with a lot of money can get away with whatever 
they want. I'm sorry if this seemed like a rant...maybe it was a 
little but I didn't mean for it to offend no one. I just wanted to 
be heard and for the average Joe to be heard once again since it is 
us Joes who make up the majority of this country. Thank you for 
hearing me out. Take care and be well. John Berger



MTC-00010397

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Before Microsoft made my life easy with its fine products I 
would be tearing my hair out with competing products that never 
worked. I get great support and service from Microsoft and am happy 
as can be with the company the way it is. I understand the case and 
the government's reasons for prosecuting it but I hope with all my 
heart that brave little Microsoft will not be broken up. It will be 
no favor to me and my small business to have more confusion in the 
marketplace. Regards Peter Lake



MTC-00010398

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the gov't settled the controversary and with the 
economy as it is I believe it will

[[Page 25299]]

be more beneficial for the country to proceed with other pressing 
issues. thank you



MTC-00010399

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    100% in favour of the settlement



MTC-00010400

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One administration goes after Microsoft with a zeal. The next 
one comes in and says NO we don't have enough. Why would the Gov't 
be interested in a private corporation in the first place. Screw 
Clinton and his legal team of Janet and thier zeal to attack 
Microsoft. And to the Attorney General of California wait till 
election and see how loud I scream over your actions against 
Microsoft.....



MTC-00010401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Envy and greed although basic to ceratain human beings should 
not be the determining factor for MICRSOFT by tring to stymie it s 
creativity.Time for government regulators to use common sense as we 
go head on with international competition that would certainly be 
jumping for joy if they landed MSFT to bolster their economy and 
work force. By the downsizing of industry with its job creating 
opportunities we are witnessing layoffs that will be impacting our 
tax base which sustains all the services that everyone thinks they 
are entitled to. Paying lawyers to practice their trade is what is 
compounding our problems with their skillful tactics manipulating 
the system and adding their costs to companies that pass the costs 
on to us consumers and taxpayers



MTC-00010402

From: Mary Crockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am oposed to the government doing any more to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing to provide superior products to us the 
consumers. The government has spent more than enough money 
harrassing Microsoft. It is time for them to leave Microsoft alone.
    Thank you
    Chuck Crockett



MTC-00010403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since when is it against the law for a company to make money? 
Please leave Microsoft alone as it was doing just fine. Example of a 
problem incurred by the above settlement: I just recently purchased 
a new computer with XP Home edition and it is missing some of the 
utilities that Microsoft included in their other editions and is 
still in XP Pro. This utility is not on the market by other 
suppliers and therefore I am unable to purchase and install it on my 
XP Home edition computer.
    Thank you



MTC-00010404

From: SIMONE MALONEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The arguments that I've heard on this case, that Microsoft 
prevents competition, seem unfounded to me. When I purchased my 
computer about 4 years ago, I was asked what system I wanted. Having 
experienced Microsoft windows on the original Apple computer, I 
could not refuse to have windows installed on my computer. I don't 
know much about other systems except for DOS but I know I wanted the 
system that I was most familiar with. Had I learned about other 
systems, my selection might have been different but it's rather 
unlikely. I believe Microsoft built ``a better mouse trap''. Let the 
competition deal with Microsoft. Save my tax dollars.
    Simone Maloney
    171 Russell St.
    Manchester, NH 03104



MTC-00010405

From: KV1030
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To the judge of the federal trial court hearing the Microsoft 
Corp. case, I am writing to express my views on the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corp. The current settlement which is 
being pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice and some of the 
participating states does not in my opinion offer the protections 
required of such a settlement for either consumers or competing 
companies. I believe much stronger remedies are called for to 
prevent further abuses by Microsoft Corp., correct ongoing anti-
competitive behavior by this company, and deprive Microsoft Corp. of 
its illegal gains. I believe the states which are dissenting from 
the current settlement have reasonable concerns regarding the 
current proposal. I am in favor of more stringent remedies to 
control Microsoft Corp.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Hartelt
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa



MTC-00010406

From: Jacques Dupuis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a consumer I am curious to know just how many consumers have 
you had testified at the Microsoft trial. Speaking for myself, I 
remember having to pay $500 to $700 dollars for DOS software like 
Word Perfect or Word Star. With Microsoft you can buy an entire 
suite of software for much less than that, Microsoft Office. Where 
did the consumer is getting hurt here? Please do me a favor and 
resolve your Wars on Drug and go after ``real'' Criminals to really 
protect your taxpayers (consumers). Some States don't even have 
enough money to have all the prosecutors needed to prosecute our 
criminals and now you are looking to make criminals of anyone that 
is successful and who is keeping its customers (consumers) happy. I 
just wish our own government could do as good of a job as Microsoft 
does. By the way, why don't you turn all of your attorneys and 
prosecute government violations of our Great Constitution that have 
been violated by agencies of the government. The free marketplace 
has always and always will do a much better job than any Government 
can ever hope to achieve. Give it up!!!
    Jacques Dupuis ``I would rather have a mind opened by fact than 
one closed by belief.



MTC-00010407

From: James M. Tarpley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I agree whole heartedly with your recent decision regarding 
Microsoft's absurdly self serving settlement offer.
    James M. Tarpley
    216 Sea Isle Point
    Atlantic Beach NC 28512-5936
    voice: (252) 247-7813
    eFax: (425) 984-8843



MTC-00010408

From: Craig Juel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe the whole antitrust case against Microsoft over the 
last three years has been a colossal waste of time and money. The 
central issues of the case are no longer of consequence. I do not 
support the breakup of Microsoft am in support of the settlement 
because this needs to end as soon as possible for our IT sector to 
return to normal. Under the terms of the settlement I am glad to see 
that Microsoft will be increasing its relations with computer makers 
and software developers for the sake of stopping the ``muscling 
out'' strategy, which might have occurred in the past. I am also 
happy to see that a three person technical committee will be formed 
to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement and assist 
with dispute resolution. The nine states that still oppose should be 
urged to drop the suit. The best interest of the public will be 
served when free enterprise is allowed to be on its way and 
jumpstart our economy out of recession. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Juel



MTC-00010409

From: Massoud Javadi
To: Microsoft ATR,Senator Gramm,Senator

[[Page 25300]]

Hutchison,Rep....
Date: 1/11/02  6:23pm
Subject: Oppose Microsoft Settlement
    Renata Hesse
    Trial Attorney
    Antitrust Division
    Department of Justice
    I have written today to comment on the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation. While I understand 
the honorable intentions of the judge and court in settling the case 
in order to prompt the economic recovery of the nation's largest 
company and thereby, in theory, to prompt economic recovery of the 
nation, I deplore the toothless settlement that has been accepted by 
the Department of Justice prosecutors. There are three things I feel 
must be included in a settlement that would enact real change in the 
operating system market and allow for true competition:
    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. Microsoft's success, while due in some part to internal 
innovation, relies heavily on technologies developed by the public 
sector. The Internet and much of the networking and software 
technology essential for Microsoft Windows have been fostered by 
federal grants and Department of Defense research money. As such, 
any Microsoft networking protocols which build or modify these 
publicly developed standards must be published in full and approved 
by an independent network protocol body. This will prevent Microsoft 
from using their market position to seize de facto control of the 
Internet.
    I trust that you will attempt to enact real and meaningful 
change in the operating system market. This is a true national 
security issue. Microsoft may be important to the nation's economy 
in the short term, but long term economic security can only come 
from a free and efficient market for operating systems and 
networking technologies.
    I care about these issues and I vote.
    Massoud Javadi
    806 Oakley
    Houston, TX 77006
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010410

From: Fernando Cerda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please, leave Microsoft alone!!!! You have been too harsh on 
them already. Bill Gates has changed how the world works!!! Are you 
punishing him because he has built an empire on his brain power?
    Loriann Cerda-Donoso



MTC-00010412

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear Sirs:
    I am contacting you to express my desire that the action against 
Microsoft go no further. Besides the fact that it is unfair to 
Microsoft and it's shareholders, it cannot be the best thing for the 
US economy. Enough already!
    Best regards,
    Paul Moraff
    4 haynes Avenue
    West Islip, NY 11795



MTC-00010413

From: nemesis enforcer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:32pm
    Isn't it obvious what's going on? They aren't trying to 
monopolize, they are conquering the world. While this anti trust 
suit goes to shambles, its a distraction as the big `M' buys up 
other companies to gain world domination in the computer industry. I 
cant believe my tax dollars actually pay some of your salaries. Look 
at the headaches from the at@t break up, the dereg of CATV etc. Is 
it really creating competition? Didn't you read the article about a 
$250 a month cable TV bill from aol? Penalize the company...they 
should be forced to refund every registered windows product to its 
owner in full. Did you know that not only Microsoft Csr really 
sucks, the phone call is paid for by the consumer, and they keep you 
on hold for an hour before they say hello.



MTC-00010414

From: pierce@westernfinancial group.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. The Microsoft settlement is fair and will help 
the nation s technology and economy to move forward. The government 
s legal action against Microsoft has been dragging on for years and 
at last a fair settlement is at hand. Please stop the endless cycle 
of litigation now.
    Respectfully submitted
    Lawrence W. Pierce



MTC-00010416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this legal assault on Microsoft as the Justice 
Department and most of the States want to do. Do not allow a handful 
of MS competitors to use their intrastate political influence to 
undermine the best interests of the rest of American consumers.



MTC-00010418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement reached is eminently better than ongoing 
litigation and uncertainty. Judge Posner correctly realized that 
resolution of this dispute is far more important than undue 
condescension to the collateral demands of bit players and special 
interests. Please approve and adopt the settlement achieved.



MTC-00010419

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like the Microsoft suit completed. Microsoft has done a 
great deal for this country and the pending agreement should be 
accepted. thank you



MTC-00010420

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Cut out the nonsense and allow this settlement to go to 
finality. Yjr settlement should be approved totally and completely.



MTC-00010421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this issue & let us move on.



MTC-00010422

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get this matter settled. Consumers have been 
helped by Microsoft technology not hurt. I write a column on 
computer technology for a legal newspaper and have seen the 
tremendous advantages of Microsoft software for lawyers as well as 
all consumers. The lawsuit is based on a faulty premise that 
consumers have been injured. We should put this whole matter to rest 
and let the computer world get on with producing better and better 
products.



MTC-00010423

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let our courts put this case to closure. Only the 
companies that are not as advanced as Microsoft want to keep it open 
and active. It is at the stage it is a shear waste of the courts 
time and the taxpayers money.
    Cordially
    Dick A. Campbell



MTC-00010424

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

[[Page 25301]]

Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is another example of Microsoft s illegal and unethical 
tactics. The justice department really fell down on their job in 
this case. Microsoft has gotten away with murder and has been 
hindering innovation unless it is done Microsoft s way and fills 
Microsoft/s pockets. Now is the time to stop this monolopy find a 
way to let the innovation and technical leadership of others be 
successful.



MTC-00010425

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Unlike a company such as Enron Microsoft contributes to the 
quality of living of individuals around the globe. They are a 
company whose very existance pivots on constantly evolving 
technology. Leave them alone. Unless obvious blatant violations of 
monopoly laws take place allow them to explore new fields without 
interferance from jealous competitors.



MTC-00010426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumer choices not government management of innovation are the 
best marketplace regulators. New regulations and unnecessary 
lawsuits against technology companies will stifle innovation and 
result in consumers paying higher prices. I am in favor of ending 
the Microsoft matter as soon as possible and getting on with 
business.



MTC-00010427

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Tell the cry babies to go home and create something. Enough is 
Enough!



MTC-00010428

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS JUST TRYING TO GET SOME OF THE MONEY 
FROM MICRO-SOFT THE GOVERNMENT IS LOOKING FOR A GOLDEN CALF.



MTC-00010429

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop wasting money and causing consumers problems. Drop your 
hounding of Microsoft. Start investigating Emromgate.



MTC-00010430

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please go ahead with the agreed settlement. Further action is 
not needed



MTC-00010431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let a fair impartial court make a fair judgment on this big 
problem nwith out any out side influence.



MTC-00010432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time this suit against Microsoft is settled so 
that they can get on with the good work they have done for so long. 
It seems to me that if their competitors build a better mouse trap 
then they won t have to worry about what Microsoft does. What ever 
happened to free enterprise?



MTC-00010433

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is more than fair. 
If a company invents and developes a product I do not thikn that the 
competition should have the right to capitalize on someone elses 
hard work. I think that Microsoft should now be left alone by those 
jealous want-to-be cometitors and government agencies.



MTC-00010434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A decision of the court has been rendered....MOVE ON! Why is it 
that the vocal minority do not accept rulings that do not favor 
their agendas? If our goverment continues to involve itself to the 
extent of involvement in the Microsoft case we can expect to see 
bright minds discouraged from creating the future. Is this what our 
goverment wants? I m tired of listening to the goverment and the 
power hungry who continue this fight. To them I say Get a life!



MTC-00010435

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement that has been offered. As a former 
teacher who had to use MacIntosh products I know that the advent of 
Windows based software was a financial boon to the classroom. The 
same products in the Mac format were many times higher priced. 
Windows brought software to the teacher and consumer in varieties 
which were affordable. At home we were lucky to have word processing 
and a spread sheet. The array of affordable products brought with 
the coming of Windows gives lie to the charge that Microsoft has 
hurt the consumer. The states that have not settled have business 
interests that hope to flourish by hurting Microsoft rather than by 
competing through the marketplace.



MTC-00010436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement was more than fair. It is unfortunate that 
because Microsoft and Gates did not make the required contributions 
to Clinton and Company s campaign coffers that the Justice 
Department initiated this action in the first place. It is time to 
stop this nonsense now. Enough is enough.



MTC-00010437

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Accept the settlemnt in the Microsoft case to allow the country 
to continue to recover from slow recession.



MTC-00010438

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough taxpayer money has been spent already to benefit the 
opponents of Microsoft. The proposed settlement is more than fair in 
support of a flawed judgement. The California AG should be 
prosecuted for his irresponsible pursuit of this judgement while 
being paid off by MS competitors.
    Bob Russell



MTC-00010439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair as it is. Please keep 
it from being changed.



MTC-00010440

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    End this case now ! Americas strength is free enterprise. 
Competition ! Winners and losers ! The govn t(bureaucrat)can t 
tolerate competition !!!!



MTC-00010441

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Proceed with the settlement. This seams to be the best for every 
one concerned.



MTC-00010442

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the decision stand!



MTC-00010443

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having no personal risk in this case I do have some considerable 
interest. I have been using computers for years. When the PC

[[Page 25302]]

started to become popular the biggest complaint was cost limited 
software availability and compatibility. When Windows was introduced 
the average user embraced it because it opened away to eliminate 
many of the above concerns. I recently purchased my 3rd Pentium 
Series Machine. The first was a 100Mhz Pentium with all of the major 
available bells and whistles. Six years ago that machine cost over 
$3 000. This November I bought a 1.9Ghz Pentium 4 with bells and 
whistles that would reduce my original Pentium to nothing more than 
a bad door stop. The cost was in the low $2000 range. 19+ times the 
computing power 6 times the memory 80 sized the hard drive capacity 
16 times more video storage and the list goes on and a state of the 
art Microsoft Operating System XP. The point of the story is that as 
a consumer I have not been hurt at all quite the contrary. I have a 
choice of software that staggers the imagination and all of it is 
cheaper faster and better than what was available even 6 years ago. 
I have no doubt that Microsoft took advantage of its position of 
prominence and power. Does everyone at some time. Usually! Let s 
check out the White House for some recent examples. To me the 
settlement on the table should be approved and we should all move on 
to more interesting innovations and concerns. Justice will be and 
has been served. It is time to get out of the media s glare and just 
move on!



MTC-00010444

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this soon. The agreement seems to have been hashed 
out and is merely waiting for the final nod. Microsoft has been an 
asset to the industrial world. Let s get on with it please. I am 
very happy this did not happen when the automobile was first 
invented. Th threat to the buggy whip manufacturers would have had 
all of the caves in Kentucky full of buggy whips because of the 
unfair competition to their industry.
    Thank you.



MTC-00010445

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Justice Dept is wrong and Microsoft should be broken 
up.



MTC-00010447

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support Microsoft in its negotiations with the 
government and think far too much time money and effort has been 
spent on this case to the detriment to the consumer.



MTC-00010448

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Microsoft will have to live under terms that 
are equitalbe and just. Don t let competition taint the judicial 
process. Finalize the settlement.



MTC-00010449

From: Stephen T. Spray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:41pm
Subject: Hats off to Judge Motz
    Congratulations to Judge Motz for stepping up to the plate and 
stiking a blow for business competition. When the guilty party is 
allowed to be the architect of their own punishment, then you get 
the kind of deal that Microsoft was going to use to increase their 
control of the market and stifle the competition.
    Any user of Microsoft products, as I have been for years, knows 
how they have built in to their operating system programming to 
preclude or greatly limit users who wish to use any competitive 
product, such as the Netscape browser. The frustration to any 
intelligent user can lead to out and out anger, at the ways they 
constantly tout and build in methods to make their own products 
easier to use, and limit or deny ordinary users the ability to 
effectively procure and use competitive products.
    Microsoft contends that they have been good for competition, but 
that would be exactly like contending John D. Rockefeller was good 
for competitive pricing in the oil industry. Baloney is baloney any 
way it is packaged.
    Stephen T. Spray
    Huntsville, Alabama



MTC-00010450

From: Debbie Tropiano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debbie Tropiano
1305 Brianna Court
Cedar Park, TX 78613
January 11, 2002
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 too am opposed to the settlement as I feel that it 
inadequately punishes Microsoft for their behavior, has too many 
loopholes for Microsoft to use to continue the same behavior and 
insufficient penalties if they don't abide by the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Debbie Tropiano



MTC-00010451

From: rima
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I fail to see how settling a court case without punishing the 
offender, or even stopping the criminal behavior, is anywhere close 
to being in the good of the country. It makes one wonder how much 
microsoft money changed hands, to make the settlement happen.
    Jon Rima



MTC-00010452

From: Ken Woodmansee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:54pm
Subject: comments
    Alternates to Microsoft Windows, such as Mac and Linux, will 
never be successful until standard Microsoft applications like 
Microsoft Office work equally well for all operating systems. When 
the same company owns the operating system and the applications, 
there is no incentive to create compatible versions for your 
competition. Microsoft's applications have become the defacto 
standard for most businesses. Even though Microsoft Windows is 
greatly inferior to other available operating systems, there is no 
choice for the consumer because the applications needed for 
performing the most common tasks are not available for other 
environments.
    Ken Woodmansee
    Director of Engineering
    Cordell, Inc.--``Network Solution Experts''
    http://www.cordell.com
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: (626) 966-4402
    FAX: (626) 339-2582



MTC-00010453

From: Holmes, Loren T
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Treatment
    Why are you being so soft on these Microsoft liars and crocks? 
They need to be split up so that can't keep others from being 
inovative.



MTC-00010454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft continue to do the job that they have been doing. 
They have earned everything that they have (Bill Gates risked his 
future to build the company so he deserves the profit). If his 
competitors cannot keep up or pass him--tough. That is called smart 
business and he has earned it.



MTC-00010455

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading all the Microsoft competition gobbledegook 
parroted by the Justice Department in their case against Microsoft I 
think the settlement reached betweeen Microsoft the Justice 
Department and 9 of the 18 states arrayed against Microsoft is a 
more than adequate punishment for a company which literally 
outcompeted its competitors. I don t know what is going through the 
minds of Justice Department officials when they take the word of 
failing competitors against one of if not the most successful 
company in the United States Microsoft and attempt to impose 
penalties which handicap Microsoft and provide Microsoft s 
intellectual property to their competitors so that those competitors 
can MAYBE compete successfully against Microsoft. The 9 states which 
did not accept the settlement are those states in which

[[Page 25303]]

Microsoft s main failing competitors have their home offices and 
those states are bowing to pressure from those companies to 
eliminate their competition for them. Microsoft has always provided 
some of the best most innovative software at reasonable prices to 
their users. Those that say elsewise obviously have an axe to grind. 
The settlement reached between the Government 9 states and Microsoft 
is MORE THAN FAIR to the prosecution will benefit educational 
institutions and will be beneficial to those crybaby corporations 
who were unable to compete fairly with Microsoft.



MTC-00010456

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave as is I believe it is more than fair.



MTC-00010457

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time to settle this case. It is not the role of government 
to penalize successful companies so that competitors can succeed 
with inferior products or marketing. The remaining opposition to the 
settlement are still in it for the purpose of rescuing the competing 
companies in their states. The only outcome of continuing the suit 
is detrimental to the consumer. The role of government is to protect 
consumers not to punish them. I strongly recommend that the agreed 
upon settlement be implemented as soon as possible so as to prevent 
ever-escalating cost to the taxpayer as well as the technology 
consumer.



MTC-00010458

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a retired person who has used the Microsoft programs on my 
former business and now home computer. Those groups who oppose the 
settlement agreement should thank Microsoft for the development of 
computer software and thus gave them the opportunity to participate 
in software development. Now they want to destroy the company that 
made this technology possible. I support the agreements reached in 
the settlement agreement put forward by Microsoft. Thanks for 
registering my support.



MTC-00010459

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to stop needless expense and give a kick starrt to 
our economy by accepting the agreements reached between many of the 
States and Microsoft.



MTC-00010460

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get on with the settlement!!



MTC-00010461

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement agreement is fair and adquate. Going on and on 
hurts technology advancement and impedes research in the interest of 
the public. Enough is enough---lets call it quits and standardize 
the settlement for all parties based upon the federal agreement



MTC-00010462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Accept the proposed settlement and put an end to this stupid law 
suit by competitors against a successful company.



MTC-00010463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Without Microsoft there would be not be a hi-tech industry. The 
IBM like companies wants to see to big business like Banks Insurance 
companies and other Government sponsored contractors because the 
non-value added in these contract can Bankrupt the public. Microsoft 
is the heart and sole of the HOME Hi Tech market and has been the 
only serious investor in this market. I do not own one share of 
Microsoft stock but I have always recognized their leadership in 
promoting the sale of every high tech company s hardware. Through 
their evolution of the software the Hard Disk drive technology 
exceeded expectations the video card market now sell cards for more 
than some computers the 19 inch monitor sound card makers 
motherboard and memory chip makers all sell for less than 5-30% of 
their 1992 prices. ZEROX UNIX V OS2 Mac OS and many other Windows 
competitive operating systems can only blame their R&D investments 
and management. Let Micorsoft continue to help our country grow and 
spend more energy on ENRON Terrorist and many other subjects that 
are trying to destroy our way of life. Microsoft has made America 
proud and unless you believe that they are also hiring A. Anderson 
to do their accounting we should leave them along without enforcing 
any consent decree. This Eugene Crew wants to steal money from the 
the Microsoft company. California does not want computers for their 
students they want money that they will distribute. Sound familiar? 
Sounds like the energy crisis that they regulate!!! Well sorry that 
this comment arrived too late.



MTC-00010464

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There has been too much money and time spent on this so-called 
case in the first place. The problem with the Microsoft competitors 
is nothing but sour grapes and jeolosy that they couldn t break up a 
fine company and make a profit out of it for themselves. What they 
really want to see is the collaps of Microsoft so they can grab for 
themselves what is left over and this is the only way they can see 
of doing it. Settle this now because it these other companies get 
their way the cost of this technology will go through the roof if 
they get their hands on it.



MTC-00010465

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Microsoft Settlement This settlement is a tough fair and 
reasonable compromise and is in the best interest of everyone.



MTC-00010466

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already! I am a retired Marine having served 26 1/2 
years.I fought for this country because above all else it was a 
country that rewarded those who were willing to step into the arena 
and give their all for the benefit of others. No greater example of 
this exist than Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. It is beyond comprehesion 
that Microsoft is being penalized for being innovative. Not only 
have they made it possible for virtually EVERYONE to be able to use 
a computer but have done it without the greed we see in the 
companies and politicians who are attacking them. Please use some 
common sense and end this unjustified attack--not for Microsoft but 
for the good of this country I hope we both love.
    Thank you
    Kindly
    Joe and Sandy Sucha



MTC-00010467

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    All people/parties who have pursued this case against Microsoft 
are guilty of FRAUD WASTE and ABUSE of Tax Payers Money. They should 
all be made to reimburse (with triple damages) the American tax 
payers and Microsoft.



MTC-00010468

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked with Microsoft products for years--I have also 
worked with products from Sun and Netscape among others. I find the 
Microsoft suite of servers and OSs far more valuable and innovative 
than Sun products and their browser blows Netscape's away. This 
isn't because Microsoft is some monopoly (It's not--you're free to 
write your own OS right now break out the assembler books and have 
at it) but because the products serve a wider audience BETTER than 
their competitors. Why is Microsoft's browser BETTER than Netscape's 
(oops I mean AOL's of course) if Microsoft is this slothful behemoth 
that isn't good for consumers as their detractors say? Because

[[Page 25304]]

those attacking Microsoft can't win in the marketplace so they want 
to use the court system like a bunch of stooges. Don't let this 
happen. Any action by the government against Microsoft will follow 
in Judge Jackson's path of bias and be HURTFUL to innovation not 
helpful. Leave competition to the marketplace instead of letting a 
bunch of lack-luster whiners insult competition in the courtroom.



MTC-00010469

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement agreed upon between the DOJ and Microsoft 
is fair and it is time we all move on.



MTC-00010470

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly favor the settlement. Long drawn out litigation in a 
dynamic fast changing industry such as software obviously hurts the 
public by diverting management attention away from innovation to 
serve the public and diverting monies to lawyers that should be 
spent on innovation. The best minds of Microsoft the Justice 
Department and responsible state attorney generals have now agreed. 
The only disagreement comes from some attorney generals such as the 
AG in my state of Massachusetts who are subject to powerful 
political pressures from Microsoft competitors whose interests do 
not necessarily concur with the public interest.



MTC-00010471

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The waste of time and money caused by litigation over Microsoft 
needs to come to an end. The settlement seems like a fair solution. 
What Microsoft has done for the last 10 or so years is make personal 
computing accessible and affordable for the average consumer as well 
as creating a standardized platform for almost everyone who uses a 
PC. Microsoft has in no way hurt consumers. It is to the benefit of 
the national economy to get this thing over with.
    Sincerely
    Carol Shukle



MTC-00010472

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How can it be that Microsoft s business practices are illegal? 
Sure they are heavy-handed yes they could be toned down I ll agree 
with that. Yes they are tough yet that is good for the industry as a 
whole. Their competition should stop complaining and start 
competing. If a software company wants to beat Microsoft do it on 
the store shelves not the courts. The competition simply needs to 
(in simple terms) out program and improve upon the available 
technology. Develop new and better ways of doing things and stick to 
it. Unlike in the past when a software company would develop a great 
program then their support would vanish and the product would 
stagnate up until now Microsoft would step in and basically finish 
the job that others left by the wayside. Take for instance Netscape 
it took over 4 years for them to finally improve upon the program 
meanwhile Microsoft kept driving the platform foreward with their 
Internet Explorer. Simply put the competition needs to stop whining 
and hire better programmers come up with new and exciting products. 
Microsoft s business practices don t affect me as a consumer as a 
matter of fact I simply prefer Microsoft products because they are 
quality products and should troubles exist the support is second to 
none always has been
    K. Thomas



MTC-00010473

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is correct. It is time we stopped bashing 
successful companies in this country when there is in truth 
competition.



MTC-00010474

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case. I 
believe it is a fair settlement for all parties. In the interests of 
the public & the technology industry I hope it will be accepted soon 
so this case will be ended.



MTC-00010475

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse: I honestly believe that M/Soft has gone through 
enough trying to prove that they are not pirates dishonest or trying 
to break up other companies. They have been unable to compete and by 
now should recognize that declaring a truce would be the best way 
out. The ENRON debacle is one that should be pushed to the front. 
Many politicians and other government officials are involved and 
undoubtedly are going to be excused for their actions. The average 
American is disgusted with what is going on in the country today. 
Stop the Microsoft debacle and get to more important things.
    Respectfully
    C. R. Rizzuto



MTC-00010476

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Simply: Leave Microsoft alone. No user to my knowledge 
complained about its business practices. I seem to recall that 
Netscape did therefore the govt took action. It s a bunch of sour 
grapes. I applaud Microsoft for all of its products.



MTC-00010477

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. Please finalize the 
settlement.



MTC-00010478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft should be left alone. The Government really 
messed up our telephone system when they messed with Ma Bell.



MTC-00010479

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Word on the street is Microsoft did not donate enough money 
to the Polititions and the Clinton Group. That is the only reason 
this Company was envolved. As a Sales Person and see the Federal 
Goverment going after any Company Me and many people in my sales 
terretory are looling at a Big Brother Type of Goverment. Now that 
the Dirt bags are out of the White House The Federal Government 
should let all people do Business and let the Market handle 
competition not federal Goverment



MTC-00010482

From: Bill Pratt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Federal District Court Judge,
    Please find for Microsoft and their proposed settlement. I 
believe to do so is in the best interest of the public. As a 
taxpayer, I have watched and waited too long as our tax dollars are 
misspent on this case. It is my strong belief that these additional 
States which refuse to settle are doing so only for their own 
selfish monetary purposes and not in the best interest of their 
people or the United States. I believe it is time to close the book 
on this. I strongly support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in 
their desire to settle this lawsuit. Please make the correct 
decision on behalf of the American public and settle this case.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    R. William Pratt
    7020 Roundelay Rd. N.
    Reynoldsburg, OH 43068



MTC-00010483

From: Wendy Viramontes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendy Viramontes
1520 Jody Avenue
Lebanon, PA 17046
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 25305]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy S. Viramontes



MTC-00010484

From: Fred H. Greenwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred H. Greenwood
7 Kirkwood Road
West Hartford, CT 06117-2830
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Fred H. Greenwood



MTC-00010485

From: Nancy Marie Regets
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Marie Regets
167 Millrace Circle
Aiken, SC 29805-9381
January 11, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nancy Marie Regets



MTC-00010486

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I agree with the judge that Microsoft does not deserve the 
ability to increase their marketshare by giving away their product. 
Giving away their product is like letting little kids have a taste 
of free drugs. You know Microsoft will benefit by upgrades. Let 
Microsoft compete in the market, just as everyone else does.
    Regards,
    Rick Redfern
    714.894.0407



MTC-00010487

From: Les Lohmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse:
    As a U.S. citizen living abroad, I am very concerned that the 
proposed settlement with Microsoft does not begin to address the 
harm done to the software industry nor does it create an environment 
where anticompetetitive behaviors will be stopped.
    In order for the software industry to recover, the retail 
software (especially the word processing, spreadsheet and browser 
software) must be separated from the operating system. No paper wall 
will achieve this -the company must be split in two (at least).
    Interestingly, the stockholders of MS will benefit far more 
under this scenario based on the results of significant breakups of 
the past. The economy of the U.S. will benefit and the market for 
software and related services will grow.
    During this period of recession, permitting recessionary forces, 
such as anticompetetitive monopolistic behavior, can only hurt us 
all.
    Leslie John Lohmann
    mailto:[email protected]
    fon/fax: 81-3/5987-0723
    2-26-6 Nukui
    Nerima-ku, Tokyo 176-0021



MTC-00010488

From: Judy Sarris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
    I'm tired of the antitrust politicians wasting our money on 
suits that have no value and are meaningless in a free market 
economy anyway. The only place there can be a real monopoly is if 
the government intervenes and restricts competition. As long as 
there is a free market, the best/highest value/most desireable 
product will ultimately win. Only government can give a monopoly to 
a company or companies and keep this from happening. The government 
should not be in the business of siding with or bailing out 
companies that could not compete in the marketplace so are looking 
for the courts to do for them what they couldn't do for themselves.
    Microsoft has done more for the average technology consumer than 
any company in the history of the industry. They have built better 
software, provided better service, and done it for less than any 
competitor. They have increased the quality and reduced the cost of 
desktop software faster than any other product of any sort has ever 
done. THAT is why Microsoft is the giant it is--because its products 
and service are better than the alternatives.
    The government wasted billions of our dollars pursuing IBM for 
naught. By the time anything happened, IBM was no longer a dominant 
player. The same could happen to Microsoft if they let the 
competition get ahead of them. As long as they know that (and they 
live and breathe it every day), they will continue to build more 
value for the consumer. Leave them alone and let them do it.
    The anti trust cops who claim to have the consumer's interest at 
heart are hurting those same consumers more than Microsoft ever 
will.
    1. The drain on Microsoft's time and resources detract from 
their ability to build the software we all want and can't get from 
lesser rivals.

[[Page 25306]]

    2. The drain on Microsoft's finances reduces the value of their 
stock which is one of the most widely held in the nation.
    3. The government is wasting billions of our tax dollars to 
support this boondoggle and to effectively subsidize competitors who 
can't compete on the merits. DROP THIS SUIT!!!
    Judy



MTC-00010489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:23pm
Subject: Microsoft School System Donation/Settlement
    DOJ:
    It is important to maintain a level playing field and I'm sure 
that MSFT pushed the envelope....but: try to keep in mind that no 
other platform, system, inter-connectivity is as productive as MSFT, 
whether student, business or military, its not even close! To even 
point students in the direction of Apple, Linux to some degree, is 
stagnating the analytical growing mind.
    I started 35 yrs ago with a sliderule & punch cards, I know 
whereof I speak!
    Dirk Tucker
    Naples, Fl



MTC-00010490

From: Dennis Matthias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly support the Justice Department settllement with 
Microsoft. We both use Microsoft Windows at home and at work. It 
seems a fair settlement and I believe it is time to move on and let 
U.S. companies continue to lead the world in tecnology.
    Yours Truly,
    Dennis and Virginia Matthias
    4105 Heritage Hill Lane
    Ellicott City, MD 21042



MTC-00010491

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Clinton worried more about the terrorists instead of picking 
on Mircosoft we would not be in the War that we are now in. Enough 
of picking on a wonderful company--let s end this unfair 
treatment...mwc



MTC-00010492

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Accept the settlement and let Him get on with his life. He was 
smart enough to give all this before others even thought about it. 
Let Bill gates alone Now.



MTC-00010493

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it s time to let Microsoft alone and accept the Judges 
decision. They have done wonders with Dos and Windows.



MTC-00010494

From: Bob Wiley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  7:41pm
Subject: Please settle the case with Microsoft!
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there 
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major 
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a 
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the 
behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely yours,
    Robert L. Wiley III
    Managing Director
    Sound Capital Partners
    701 Fifth Avenue
    Seattle, WA 98104
    (206) 264-2110



MTC-00010495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Personally, as one who has been in the computer industry since 
the days of the Apple II, I feel that Microsoft has done far more to 
aid the computer industry and this ecconomy than it has ever done to 
harm it. I remember all too well the days of the ``tower of babel'' 
becuase of this or that small company attempting to develop some 
form of proprietay software... Apple, in many ways, still is a 
closed system. But, as there was a finding of monopolistic 
practices, let the federal case stand.
    From where I sit, it appears as though the states are simply 
looking for a revenue source for their own uses and have less 
interest in ``justice'' than in seeing how deep Microsoft's pockets 
can be... IF there were monopolistic practices engaged in, it is the 
consumer and private business who took the hits... and I don't hear 
anybody talking about helping out the actual injured parties 
(assuming that there really are any) in this case.
    Furthermore, while Apple makes a decent product, I find it 
facinating that, in the imaginary name of ``competition'', our 
students are being taught using computers that hold a relatively 
small place in the overall population of desktop systems installed 
in home, government and workplace environments. The states 
apparently desire to believe that allowing Microsoft to actually put 
state of the art systems in the schools would further displace 
Apple... so, rather than focus on what is actually the right thing 
to do for the education system and the citizenry served by it, they 
would prefer to keep us safe from Microsoft and pocket the money 
instead (... kinda' reminds me of all the states who legalized 
lotteries and ``riverboat'' gambling under the pretext of it helping 
the education system and then failed to inform that, while

[[Page 25307]]

the funds may actually be applied to schools, the existing school 
budgets would be offset by all or a portion of those proceeds raised 
by ``legal gambling''....
    Further, I find two great ironies in the whole Microsoft case: 
1:) Microsoft became a monopoly becuase of government contacting and 
purchasing practices (I worked as a contractor and had some 
familiarity with the proceedures) in the first place, while the 
government was not the sole reason for this, their demand for the 
interconectivity of the Microsoft products and the standards 
provided were key to the demand made for the product... 2:) The 
originial impetus for the case was brought by AOL and Netscape.... 
two who have become one and a veritable monopoly in their own 
right... So... needless to say... my opinon is, make the original 
federal settlement binding on all states.
    Thank you for your time...
    James Winkler
    Metamora, Illinois



MTC-00010496

From: Scott Grant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:47pm
Subject: microsoft monopoly
    I agree strongly with not allowing MIcrosoft to donate computers 
for compensation in the lawsuit against it's anticompetitive 
tactics. The windows operating system is an inferior system which is 
maintained by Microsoft's monopoly power. The company consistently 
misuses its power and needs to be controlled.
    Scott Grant



MTC-00010497

From: David Balts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:57pm
Subject: my opinion
    Dear Justice Department,
    I just heard of the denial of acceptance of the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. While I can understand the concerns put forth 
by the companies that object to it, I feel it was a settlement that 
helped most concerned.
    While no one, me included, wants to see any company get away 
with overcharging customers, I also see a lot of good in the 
settlement. It would benefit the neediest of schools while still 
leaving Microsoft a viable intact company.
    Unfortunately there are, and always will be, people that won't 
be happy until Microsoft is broken down and crushed into the dirt. 
And then I wonder if they would still even be happy. They seem to be 
only looking for someone to tear apart their competition so they can 
thrive. A view I'm sure they wouldn't have had they become the 
software of choice. While competition is good, I believe these 
companies and individuals only want to gain ground at Microsoft's 
expense.
    Believe me, as someone who was around using computers through 
times when there was no major player or standards I can remember 
that it was no fun. No one's software, or even information, could be 
shared with anyone else without great pains and lots of problems. We 
all cried out for some kind of standard. I, for one, was glad to 
finally see a standard spread through the industry. Unfortunately 
for those whose standard wasn't chosen, it was Microsoft that rose 
to the top.
    While most Microsoft products are hardly perfect, (and who's 
are?) they do allow many different people running many different 
programs to communicate and share data together. I would NEVER want 
to go back to the days of everyone doing their own thing with no 
standards available.
    This has become a case of the best product available becoming 
the most widely used. But to some it has just become a 'tear down 
and rip apart Microsoft at any cost' situation. And its funny how 
those that weren't chosen as the majority standard tend to be 
yelling the loudest. It was just a clear case of the public choosing 
the best that was available at the time and using it. Now instead of 
developing something that can compete or even win out over any 
Microsoft product, all the competition wants to do is yell foul and 
hope the justice department eliminates or severely restricts their 
competition.
    Believe me, the American people are smart. If they see something 
else developed that will do what they want done better than they are 
able to do it now, they will choose that product and use it. No 
matter what Microsoft or anyone else tries to do. Don't diminish the 
peoples ability.
    This situation reminds me of the break-up of the telephone 
system. While looking good on paper, trying to give other companies 
a chance and the consumer more choices and thus lower costs, it has 
done nothing but the opposite. We are all paying more and most 
people throw their hand up in disgust when it comes to figuring out 
what's best. And some companies don't even wait for the consumer to 
decide. They just grab all the new customers they can any way 
possible and the consumer usually ends up frustrated and paying in 
the end. Plus the system has never worked together as well as it 
used to.
    I realize these situations can be very different. But in some 
ways they can be very similar.
    Please keep the consumer in mind when you make your decisions, 
and not the desires and demands of those too involved to decide 
effectively. Most of Microsoft's competitors now feel that if they 
complain loud enough someone will finally listen and rule in their 
favor. While I'm not advocating letting Microsoft off Scott-free, I 
do feel both the good Microsoft has brought the consumer must be 
considered along with the bad.
    I use Microsoft products, along with other brands, and chose 
each because I felt they did what I needed to have done the most 
effectively. And I did this ONLY after looking at everything 
available. Some companies don't like it because Microsoft still 
offers some of the best products available. If other companies 
develop better software I, and the American public, are smart enough 
to choose what's best for our needs. That's the way this great 
country works.
    We don't need someone to make our decisions for us, especially 
the Microsoft competitors that seem to be complaining the loudest.
    Thank-You.
    David E. Balts
    224 S 16th St, #2
    La Crosse, WI 54601
    608-784-6703
    Age: 43
    [email protected]



MTC-00010498

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My vote is to put an end to this problem and let us get on with 
life.
    Sincerely,
    Louise Walls # 519
    10-10 So. Rockwood Blvd
    Spokane, WA 99202



MTC-00010499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:02pm
Subject: Good Microsoft Decision Today
    Judge Motz, c/o Robert Wolinsky,
    Thank you for your courage in the Microsoft opinion released 
today. Although I'm a Microsoft shareholder, I don't believe 
Microsoft should be allowed to undermine Apple by turning an 
antitrust penalty into a marketing triumph and give away Microsoft 
products to schools. A more appropriate penalty might be an award of 
$$ for those same schools to buy Apple products, or a mandatory 
rebate of some amount to all Microsoft customers. Having seen the 
press reports of today's decision, I have faith that you'll do 
justice.



MTC-00010500

From: Elizabeth Pearson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Elizabeth Pearson
    638 Hawthorne Av
    Elmhurst, IL 60126
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more

[[Page 25308]]

entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Pearson



MTC-00010501

From: joseph brumm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:03pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed antitrust 
settlement with Microsoft. Microsoft needs competition. Without 
competition Microsoft will have no reason to ever improve its 
products. Microsoft's products, in my opinion have steadily degraded 
as the company grew. After all, if there is no steady, present, 
competition, why would they need to improve their products.
    Microsoft has, over the years destroyed any competition that has 
ever come against them. The reasoning, it's good business. But our 
nation was founded on a set of ethical values. By this ruthless 
practice, Microsoft abides by none. They consistently make what I 
consider to be libelous, slanderous statements about any competition 
that ever points their way. For technology to advance, competition 
is a necessity. Else the tech industry will be like George Orwell's 
Animal Farm. The pigs (no harsh implications toward microsoft 
intended) will keep telling us how much better our life is.
    And we will be forced to believe them. Because we have no basis 
for comparison any longer.
    I cannot make suggestions as for their penalties, as I do not 
know all the matters of fact or law, but the penalties should be 
severe. At least enough so Microsoft cannot merely shake them off 
and continue with a monopoly. Thank you for your time, 
consideration, and willingness to listen, I submit Very 
Respectfully, Joseph Brumm



MTC-00010502

From: Michelle Haynes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find a letter in support of the settlement 
reached in November.
    Thank you.
    Michelle R. Haynes
    Tel. 407-539-2702
    [email protected]
Michelle Haynes
400 N. Phelps Avenue
    Winter Park
    FL 32789
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
anti-trust settlement that was reached back in early November, and I 
am relieved to see this old dispute finally come to an end. 
Microsoft has pledged to share more information with other companies 
and give consumers more choices. Microsoft will design future 
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft 
software, and Microsoft cannot strike back against companies that 
take advantage of that. If fact, the settlement stipulates that 
licensing agreements for the top 20 hardware firms must be on equal 
terms, except for volume discounts.
    This settlement will not only make it easier to conduct business 
for Microsoft competitors, but it will also allow this company to 
move forward. This settlement will benefit all. Thank you for 
settling with Microsoft, and I urge you to use your influence to 
appeal to the states that have not yet settled as well, including 
Florida.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle Haynes
    CC: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00010503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT CASE
    WHY ARE YOU WASTING OUR MONEY . . . COULD BE USED FOR OTHER 
THINGS MORE IMPORTANT . . . JUST A BIG WASTE AND YOU WONDER WHY 
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT? WHY DON'T YOU LET THE 
PEOPLE DECIDE . . . NOT A BUNCH OF LAWYERS WHO STANDS TO MAKE A LOT 
OF MONEY
    RUFUS RICHEY



MTC-00010504

From: Darek Czechowicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft is great Company. All we should be proud that 
Microsoft was created and exist in America. All people in the world 
wants one operation system--Windows. I used for so many years Lotus, 
Paradox, I switch to Microsoft because these products are better 
that competitors products.
    Regards,
    Darek



MTC-00010505

From: Kenneth Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT--NO MORE PROSECUTING
    Stop spending money on the PROSECUTION of MICROSOFT. They are in 
the marketplace and they deserve to reap the benefits of their 
labors....
    Thanks,
    Kenneth E. Owen
    6705 Jameson Road
    Amarillo, Tx 79106



MTC-00010506

From: vwlee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:32pm
Subject: Viewpoint on Microsoft AntiTrust Case
    I think the negotiated settlement is fair and the litigation 
should not be dragged on to benefit a few influential competitors. 
This antitrust case has taught Microsoft a lesson and Microsoft's 
conduct will be different. It's in public interest to not waste tax 
dollars on cases that do not benefit the public. A case in point--
the class action suit against Microsoft took a wrong turn and denied 
underprivileged children from getting billion dollars worth of free 
computers and only to benefit a few powerful lawyers.
    A concerned citizen,
    Ven Lee
    10728 Riviera Pl N.E.
    Seattle, WA 98125



MTC-00010507

From: Hal Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:44pm
Subject: The Microsoft and Enron Deal
    It seems that both Microsoft and Enron, because of their might, 
done whatever they wished to do to the general public and other 
sectors. I am glad the ruling today was against the Microsoft giant. 
Yes! The preliminary suggestion of providing software to school 
would erode Apple Co. longstanding help to school and their share of 
the computer dollar. Thank God for this ruling today.
    Hal Schmidt



MTC-00010508

From: Steve Bodis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is a letter concerning my support of the settlement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft.

3987 S 900 E
Apt. 123
Salt Lake City, UT 84124-1175
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice have finally reached a 
settlement to the antitrust case brought against Microsoft several 
years ago. This was reached after a long, litigious battle, costing 
both sides enormous amounts of money and time. I support this 
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to a wish list drawn up by its 
competitors, basically: Free intellectual property in the Windows 
internal interfaces, nondiscriminatory licensing, no retaliation for 
using non-Microsoft software within Windows, and a committee to ride 
herd on Microsoft's living up to the agreement.
    This country has been through some very difficult times, but we 
have rebounded and with the new year, I think everyone is ready to 
move on. Settling this antitrust case is one way to move on, 
allowing us to concentrate on more important things such as the 
economy. And regardless of what you may think of Microsoft, the 
company is the engine that propels this economy. When Microsoft was 
served with the antitrust lawsuit, the NASDAQ plummeted. The economy 
has yet to recover. Microsoft, from what I know of the settlement, 
has more than acceded to the demands of the Department of Justice. 
Any

[[Page 25309]]

further litigation would be very damaging. I personally think 
competitors of Microsoft held too much sway over the indictment 
against the company and I would hate to think these same people 
would impede us from moving forward and putting this case to rest.
    I support this settlement. I ask that you do also.
    Sincerely,
    Istvan Zoltan Bodis



MTC-00010509

From: FRANKLIN D MATSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:50pm
Subject: Get Tough on Evil Microsoft
    USA.Today has a link saying a person could sent their thought on 
the Microsoft case to the DOJ. I personally think that this big 
business evil company is just getting it hands spanked. They have 
been found guilty and should be punished accordingly. The government 
spent millions of dollars on the case and thus should extract 
billions and lots of them from Microsoft including extracting lots 
of money from the management at MS.



MTC-00010510

From: Gerard Terpening
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
21161 Greenboro Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646-7020
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to state my support of the recent 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
in regards to the antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a leader in the 
technology industry. Over the past decade, Microsoft has 
consistently provided consumers with innovative, user-friendly 
products. Their success in the technology industry is proof of their 
excellence in the field.
    While I do not agree with the litigation to begin with, I am 
pleased that the issue is finally resolved. After three years of 
litigation, the technology industry is definitely worse off, not to 
mention the taxpayer! It is time for the government to put the issue 
at bay and focus on rebuilding the economy.
    Microsoft competitors have received much under this settlement. 
There should be no room for complaints on their part. It is time to 
focus on the needs of our American economy.
    Sincerely,
    Gerard Terpening
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010511

From: Tori Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:05pm
Subject: my opinion
    I have been using computer (s) since 1980. I need them because I 
am a CPA, but also wish I had more time to ``play, explore.'' Bill 
Gates has done incredibly wonderful things for computer technology. 
HOWEVER, I think his success has gone to his head, and somehow he 
thinks he ought to control the market.
    Just one example....I have always liked WordPerfect because of 
it's ``reveal codes'' feature. But, every version through #8 has 
caused me nothing but problems. I finally reached the point where I 
was simply wasting my time with it. If you can't beat them join 
them. So, I went with MS Word and its accompanying Excel. Neither of 
these programs measure up to what Corel (or whoever owns them now.) 
Furthermore, I have to have the entire ``Office'' package which I 
have absolutely no need for. I spent over $200 over a year ago to 
buy ``Word'' and ``Excel.'' Then I learn that there are no bug 
fixes, updates, etc for these programs alone. I had to have the 
entire ``Office'' package itself. I resent Microsoft's power and 
control over such situations.
    It's not that my computer system is inadequate (far from it). I 
do not like being forced to have programs which I neither need, nor 
want. They muddy up the registry, mess with my ``start'' menu . . 
.in general take up space, including memory, which I want to use the 
way I want to use it. I believe that is my right. It's one thing to 
have ``Windows,'' but that's as far as it should go as far as I am 
concerned.
    I have recently upgraded my 2 computer systems. One has ``XP'' 
on it (which I love)....but I have downloaded Sun Microsystems 
spreadsheet and wordprocessor which is getting glowing reviews. On 
my other system I have ``Windows 98 SE,'' and use Lotus 
``SmartSuite.'' I like it, far and above ``Office.''
    I don't know how to curtail Mr. Gates. To give him license to 
donate computers to as many schools as he wants to is a tax gimmick 
designed to make you and everyone else happy. I raised 5 children, 
none of whom had computers in school. They learned just fine. At the 
Jr. High level I can see where they can be of great use, and provide 
more learning opportunities. But nothing beats a good teacher who is 
well versed in his/her subject.
    I firmly believe that Mr. Gates should be FORCED (under 
knowledgeable government supervision) to provide his source codes 
for all his operating systems. How else can other companies write 
competitive programs which can run under these operating systems. 
Microsoft is not the only company which has excellent programmers, 
and other companies can offer different products.
    Don't let this guy get away with what he has done, and probably 
still doing, because he can afford such a team of lawyers. You need 
good advice from people who know computers and programming. Please 
listen to him. Gates has no right to ``buy'' his way out of his 
monopolies, etc.
    Thank you for your time and the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Very sincerely,
    Victoria Heath
    [email protected]
    336-454-3121



MTC-00010512

From: John Lancaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:13pm
Subject: opinion
    I think Bill Gates and Microsoft are arrogant, interested only 
in themselves and to hell with the public. I hope you do what is 
proper in this case--Break up the monopoly.



MTC-00010513

From: John Yunker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must protest the terms of the Microsoft Settlement. The 
current wording of the settlement codifies the right of Microsoft to 
control access to information by private individuals. The settlement 
must be changed to specifically grant the right to interface with 
the microsoft platform to authorize, get, and put information. 
Certain specifications, such as the root file system, cannot be 
subject to license because this would restrict access to a basic 
public infrastructure. The information infrastructure is just as 
important to society as the energy, water, and communications 
infrastructure.
    The standards for hooking together basic public infrastructure 
MUST be available to society at large for the effective evolution of 
our society. No one can dispute that access to information is a 
basic part of modern public infrastructure. The ability to build an 
interface to my information store is a basic public right.
    As long as they have an effective monopoly on private 
information platform (non-commercial) they cannot use that position 
to exclude any class of society from being able to build components 
of the information infrastructure, e.g. they must make key interface 
specifications public and not subject to license. They can make 
specific technology used in providing a service subject to license, 
but not the service itself, nor the specification of interfaces to 
those services.
    Thank you,
    John Yunker
    1901 45th Ave SW
    Seattle, WA 98116
    (206) 935-6251
    [email protected]



MTC-00010514

From: John Luongo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The Court has established that Microsoft has a monopoly 
position. As such, its conduct is to be scrutinized to protect 
consumers. In the light of Microsoft's past behavior, we can expect 
minimal cooperation from Microsoft at best, and more likely, 
continued abuse. Microsoft's lack of candor at the trial was 
offensive, and I believe that it bodes poorly for their future 
conduct. As consumers, we need a remedy that is much stronger than 
that which was reached in the recent settlement. One needs to look 
no further than Intel and AMD to see the effects of competition in 
the personal computer marketplace. The battle for consumers between 
these two competitors has two

[[Page 25310]]

obvious benefits. First, lower prices. And second, more innovation.
    Business and personal consumers need the same type of 
competition in software. I would like to choose to purchase my 
operating system from another vendor without having to switch to 
Linux or Apple. And I would like to have a greater choice of office 
productivity software as well. Microsoft can market software that is 
bloated with features that I don't want or need, and it can force me 
to upgrade my licenses for Windows or Office when they decide it is 
no longer profitable for them to support. For example, if I decide 
to keep upgrading my computer indefinitely, at some point they can 
refuse to ``activate'' my software licenses. In effect, this forces 
me into a subscription mode. If I choose to use Office XP 
Professional ten years from now, I should not need Microsoft's 
``permission.''
    Microsoft's tactics bully both consumers, and other entrants to 
the marketplace. I wish market forces could remedy this imbalance. 
Because this is unlikely, we need a settlement or judgment that will 
protect end users from Microsoft's greed. We need your help.
    While it may seem extreme, I believe that Microsoft should be 
forced to license the code for Windows and for office productivity 
software to competitors who are willing to pay an equitable fee. 
This will compensate Microsoft for their intellectual property, 
while allowing competitors to market products that appeal to 
segmented markets. One size does not fit all in the computer 
software marketplace.
    There is a great irony in all this. Microsoft is an enormously 
talented competitor who, in the long term, would benefit more from 
healthy competition that from its present dominance.



MTC-00010516

From: J Oyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:33pm
Subject: the case
    Since when does the government have any right to say what the 
value of a product is. Overcharge the public? The public has gotten 
a good deal. maybe we forget where we were just a few short years 
ago. Computers were a mess to operate. They could not even talk to 
another computer, until Microsoft came along. GOVERNMENT: leave us 
alone.



MTC-00010517

From: Art Mayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:31pm
Subject: Power
    Microsoft has used its financial, legal and monopoly power for 
too long, and in too many ways, to allow it to continue to destroy 
competition and stifle better products.
    Anyone with more than a rudimentary knowledge of computers, and 
who has been involved with computers for a long period of time, 
knows the following: Microsoft's total addiction to ``the bottom 
line'' has turned them into a company that determines a time when it 
wants to release a new product, with unlimited advertising and 
promotion, and them releases the product at that time without regard 
to the product's readiness or quality. The term, ``sloppy 
programming'' is used by the Microsoft programmers themselves to 
identify this problem.
    And, secondly, the fact that Microsoft tries to undermine, 
purchase and destroy, or simply destroy, companies producing better 
product has led to the sad situation of today, in which other, and 
(real or potentially) better operating systems and applications are 
held back and eliminated. This country, or the world, would not let 
one pharmaceutical, medical, oil or energy entity control the sales, 
supply and use to the world, of necessary products or knowledge. 
Today, information and the internet is becoming as important as 
medicine and energy. It needs to be controlled for the good of the 
world, not one, selfish organization.
    Art Mayer,
    Bellevue, WA



MTC-00010518

From: Robert Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    By way of introduction, I'm a retired engineer and, although I 
have owned numerous personal computers over the last twenty years, I 
still consider myself just an average computer user. I hope you'll 
forgive my fervor in the matter of litigation against Microsoft, but 
like the VAST MAJORITY of computer owners, I (as well as the stock 
market) was appalled at the Department of Justice attack on 
Microsoft. Actually, the innovation and COMPATIBILITY of Microsoft's 
products have greatly improved life for the average computer owner. 
In addition, Microsoft is a most respected company, who has played a 
MAJOR roll in making the United States the world's undisputed 
technology leader (so seldom has it been that our US companies have 
not played second fiddle to the Japanese).
    Under the guise of somehow protecting computer users, the DOJ 
forged ahead with this legal action as though they somehow knew more 
about what we wanted than we did ourselves (which, I feel, smacks a 
bit of ``Big Brother-ism''). In part, I feel that the DOJ was overly 
swayed by the rantings of Microsoft's competitors (like Sun 
Microsystems) who had a vested interest in crippling the company. If 
one really wanted to do what is right for the computer market, they 
would get off Microsoft's back and let them continue giving us more 
innovative and reasonably priced products. Judge Penfield Jackson 
has, of course, been revealed for what he actually was and the 
Department of Justice concluded the case with logical remedial 
actions. However, some nine states seem to have rationalized that 
the DOJ, along with the other 40 states (and most assuredly, we 
consumers) are all wrong and that they have a sacred obligation to 
set it all straight . Anytime something is held up to the scrutiny 
of a blood letting such as this has been, there are always some who 
will never let go (not unlike vultures who have been waiting in the 
wings to glean whatever benefits that might be realized from a 
lynching). Pardon the comparison, but we consumers view their action 
as classic ambulance chasing.
    And, just when is enough, enough. Has anyone ever stopped to 
consider what this three year long ordeal, against one of the 
countries most admired companies, has already cost our country? I 
realize that this action by the dissenting states isn't costing them 
anything (I believe that Microsoft has to pick up their legal 
bills). It makes me wonder if they would be as compelled to carry on 
their ``crusade'' if it were on their nickel. I really hope that I'm 
wrong, but I get the strange feeling that somewhere in this pursuit, 
these nine states will actually be seeking a monetary settlements 
for their state's coffers.
    Please don't take offence at these concerns. They are truly 
meant as constructive suggestions.
    Bob Williams
    [email protected]
    828-926-9593



MTC-00010519

From: John L. Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    John Varner
    7503 E County Road 625 N
    Grandview, IN 47615-9558
    Ph. (812) 362-8045
    January 12, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    At age 73, and a long-time admirer of Microsoft, I write you 
with concern over the recent settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. Not only was this negotiation process 
rational and fair, but also it was well monitored and in the 
interest of all parties involved. This is why it is ridiculous for 
it to go under any further scrutiny. After three frustrating years 
of court battles, it is time to move forward.
    The greed of professional lawyers and the states objecting to 
this settlement has become ludicrous.
    My experience is limited but I have owned 3 computers and taken 
about 6 computer courses from Ivy Tech. Microsoft is certainly the 
leader in development and innovation of records for business.
    WHERE would industry and our economy be today with the without 
the technology that for the most part has been pioneered and 
developed by Microsoft?
    The terms that Microsoft and the D.O.J. have agreed upon are 
productive, detailed and in the interest of the entire IT sector. 
Microsoft has agreed to design versions of Windows that will allow 
easier installation of non-Microsoft software. Along with this, they 
are willing to be monitored by a committee that will make sure that 
they follow procedure. The IT sector is ready to move forward and 
get back to business. Can't we help support our technology industry, 
and stop any further litigation against this settlement?
    Let us allow our software companies to work together in order to 
maintain our place in the global market.
    Please help to support the agreement as it is, and let the terms 
speak for themselves.

[[Page 25311]]

Please don't shackle and penalize Microsoft further because of it's 
initiative and hard work to become the leader. The world desperately 
needs Microsoft's expertise.
    Sincerely,
    John Varner



MTC-00010521

From: Charles Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    12112 Olive Trail
    Plymouth, IN 46563-9385
    January 11, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that litigation against 
Microsoft should have never occurred in the first place. Our 
government has dragged this thing out long enough while it should be 
focusing on far more important issues.
    One of the first items of the settlement I would like to address 
has to do with contractual restrictions. Under terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft has agreed to not enter into any third party 
agreements, which require distributors to exclusively deliver their 
items, or at a fixed percentage. This is how most companies maintain 
market share such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola. I believe this concession 
is detrimental to Microsoft and inhibits their ability to compete in 
a free market.
    Secondly, in regards to the disclosure of interfaces that 
Microsoft is being forced to do, I think that it is ludicrous. 
Microsoft has been the leading innovator of technology and services 
over the last decade. They should be rewarded for their innovation 
and be allowed to keep their technological secrets that have 
propelled them to where they are today.
    The best interests of the American public will be served when 
the nine states drop their lawsuits. The government must stop 
interfering with private enterprise.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Jones



MTC-00010522

From: Alex Amies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I do not believe that the settlment is strong enough to create a 
level playing field between Microsoft and it's competitors. In 
particular, it will have the following impact on me as a computer 
programmer: (1) Force me to invest my time learning proprietary 
Microsoft technologies rather than industry standards.
    Microsoft in many cases stubbornly refuses to follow open 
industry standards and since they create the most commonly used 
platforms everybody else has to learn to use Microsoft's own 
versions of API's, protocols, and formats. Therefore, I get to spend 
less time learning technologies that can be applied to other 
operating systems. A monopoly company should be required to follow 
open industry standards.
    (2) Force me to use Windows as my desktop operating system when 
I would prefer to use something else. I would prefer to use Linux 
and that would be an option for me at work if the Netscape mail 
client on Linux (which follows the IMAP and POP3 standards) is not 
compatible with the Microsoft Exchange Mail server that my company 
operates for its staff. I am very dependent on email communication 
and, in fact, cannot work without it. A monopoly company should be 
required to produce network software that is compatible with 
products from other vendors.
    Alex Amies (US Citizen)
    192 Woodbury
    Irvine, CA 92620
    949/255 3302



MTC-00010523

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an independent software engineer, I hope you reign in 
Microsoft and curtail its evil practices. Any company who has a 
monopoly on the OS should not be able to sell applications for that 
OS. Any programmer just knows this is right.
    Thanks,
    Tom Gordon
    Stratosoft Inc.



MTC-00010524

From: Daniel A. Myerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:11pm
Subject: Settlement
    The attack by the justice department was unjust. How could any 
settlement be called unjust in those circumtances?
    Dan Myerson



MTC-00010525

From: Tee Freddy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    P.O. Box 503
    Clinton, Louisiana 70722
    January 10, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. Although I believe that antitrust litigation 
in this case was unwarranted, Microsoft should be able to move on 
with its business under the terms stipulated in the settlement. 
Microsoft has made concessions like increased information sharing 
and non-retaliation clauses in the settlement.
    Microsoft has done worlds of good for the technology industry. 
In the past decade, Microsoft has provided consumers with high-
quality, user-friendly software. Their products are the frameworks 
for the technology industry. As such, this antitrust dispute has 
served only to curb the productivity previously seen in the IT 
industry. Hence, this settlement is in the best interests of the 
state and the economy.
    At this time of recession, it is critical that Microsoft be 
allowed to concentrate on business now.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Alsup
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010526

From: John Edge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:16pm
Subject: microsoft
    I am an Australian and it worried me that Microsoft seem to be 
dictating the law rather than being judged.
    It really does give the impression that big money is exempt from 
penalties.
    John Edge
    Australia



MTC-00010527

From: Karen Mazza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern at the Justice Department:
    Enough already with trying to punish Microsoft. As a consumer, I 
am happy with their products, and think they do a better job than 
anyone else. All this trial did was waste taxpayer money, and punish 
investors. It is time for the government to get out of trying to 
regulate industries, and let the market do its own work. The market 
is far better at regulating competition than lawyers and 
bureaucrats!!! Let the market and consumers decide which products 
are the best!! Untie corporations' hands and let them do their work 
of producing superior products WITHOUT government interference! In 
this economy, we need to let our companies produce new and 
innovative products and technologies to help create new jobs. It is 
time to end Clinton's era of anti-trust law abuse. The settlement is 
enough. Stop now.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Mazza



MTC-00010528

From: Robert Dollins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:47pm
Subject: Microsoft deserves harsh judgement
    Having been an often unwilling customer of Microsoft's since 
it's early days of being only a computer languages supplier, I can 
attest to negative effects of their predatory and unfair practices 
toward both customers and competitors. Many new startups and 
innovative companies now lie in the dustbin of computing history 
because of Microsoft's practices, very often to the detriment of the 
consumer.
    In my opinion, there is no judgement too harsh to place and 
enforce against Microsoft to minimize the practices in which they 
have habitually engaged. The arrogance of Bill Gates and the entire 
corporate structure of Microsoft deserves the most rigid of 
punishment and restriction from competiting unfairly. The consumer 
and innovative new products and capabilities will benefit.
    Robert Dollins

[[Page 25312]]



MTC-00010529

From: Aglialoro, John
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/11/02  10:51pm
Subject: The U.S. Government and Microsoft Corporation
    The stunning achievement of Microsoft as a noble enterprise is 
its great gift to the general public.....the access to useful and 
inexpensive information. This voluntary transaction by a willing 
consumer exchanging a pittance of cost for the value received should 
result in a chorus of support by U. S. officials. The high profits 
EARNED by Microsoft which produce huge government income and high 
employment that creates more productivity and further government tax 
income by those gainfully employed should guarantee unwavering 
support for the existence, growth, and continuance of Microsoft as a 
standard of awe and respect.
    And yet, unconscionably, competitors of less sterner stuff in 
alliance with pale political will and bureaucratic force, 
characterize an angel of deliverance as its 
opposite................FOR SHAME !! There must be agents of reason 
within the corridors of government who could reverse the nonsense 
and give due reverence to the man and his company and therefore give 
reverence to the sacred philosophy our blessed nation was founded 
upon.
    John Aglialoro, CEO
    Cybex International
    [email protected]



MTC-00010530

From: David A. Cobb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlefolk:
    I am a professional software developer of over thirty years 
experience. Thus I have watched, and been affected by, many of the 
changes in the business of information technology during a period 
when it has changed dramatically. The desktop platform has not, 
until recently, been a major focus of my work; however, I have been 
a user of desktop systems for about twelve years and have used a 
considerable variety of both Microsoft and competing products.
    Microsoft is certainly capable of producing good software. So 
are many others. However, Microsoft does not consistantly do so, 
because, in my opinion, they don't need to be good to win. This is a 
most deplorable situation for both business users and developers. So 
long as one company remains ``the only game in town,'' American 
software products will be somewhat less than they could become.
    I have watched from the sidelines as one competitor after 
another has been crushed. Sometimes, to be sure, it was because they 
could not produce a product as good as or better than a Microsoft 
product. But often it was for other reasons having little to do with 
the technical merits of the products.
    Microsoft can easily afford to give away software, as they have 
done with their Internet Explorer. Likewise, their ``deals'' with 
OEM system builders lets them put their products in the hands of 
users at a perceived price no competitor can match. Even without the 
economic muscle provided by Microsoft's wealth and monopoly power, 
the production of software invites this sort of marketing--however 
high the cost of initially developing a product, the cost of 
reproducing it is practically nothing.
    I have read the Proposed Final Judgement with bemused dismay. I 
am no lawer and don't pretend to understand all of it. But it seems 
clear that this is barely a ``slap on the wrist.'' Microsoft is 
hardly constrained from continuing its version of ``business as 
usual.'' This seems extraordinary in the face of a strong judgement 
that they have indeed routinely engaged in unlawful business 
practices.
    My memory reaches back over many years of this business to a 
time when IBM was the ``2000 pound gorilla,'' and was constrained in 
several ways by one or another consent decree. A part of the means 
used then seems very appropriate now: *I recommend that the PFJ be 
ammended to require the complete unbundling of operating system 
software from (hardware) systems.*
    Specifically, let the OEM builders construct their systems and 
then offer the consumer a choice of software *at retail prices* to 
be installed. This will immediately eliminate the consumer's 
illusion that the pre-installed Windows software, with all it's 
newly bundled add ons, is free. Let the consumer see that, for 
example, the hardware costs $700, the Windows OS costs $200 or a 
Linux OS costs $50; the Internet Explorer browser is included in the 
OS, Netscape for Linux costs $25, etc. I realize that the OEM's are 
not a party to the judgement; the terms would need to be something 
like: ``Microsoft shall cause all software to be marked with the 
price at which it is to be sold, whether at retail or pre-installed, 
and shall not contract with any OEM or system integrator to imply 
that the pre-installed software is being provided free or at 
negligible cost.'' Further, Microsoft should be constrained to offer 
its software to any OEM or system integrator at a cost determined 
only by the volume of sales--with no covenants concerning what 
software packages the OEM may elect to market with his systems.
    This is the best opportunity the US will have for many years to 
come, to restore a measure of competitiveness in an industry that is 
becoming rapidly less competitive by the month. Please do not throw 
it away.
    Sincerely yours,
    David A. Cobb, Software Engineer
    7 Lenox Ave
    West Warwick, RI 02893-3918



MTC-00010531

From: Andrew Clerkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  10:54pm
Subject: Time to end anti-trust case
    I believe that it is time to end the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft. The government has wasted way too much time and money on 
this case. I'm a consumer and I don't think Microsoft has hurt me. 
If people don't want their products they don't have to buy them. 
There are alternatives available. This case was pushed down our 
throats by competitors who want a short cut to the top. Rather than 
compete with Microsoft they figured it would be easier to get the 
DOJ to go after them. Even the experts in the field have no idea how 
computer technology will evolve. I think it is absolutely ludicrous 
to think that government bureaucrats would be able to figure out how 
technology will evolve and how the government should control it. Let 
the free market run it's course. The DOJ totally screwed up the 
telephone system in this country. Prior to the break up of AT&T we 
had a regulated monopoly that worked great. Now we have an 
unregulated monopoly and the whole system is screwed up thanks to 
the DOJ. The point is that ``it ain't broke, so don't try to fix 
it''.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Clerkin



MTC-00010532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1430 Aerial Way SE
    Salem, OR 97302-1606
    January 11, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    After three years of unnecessary legal battles, I was pleased to 
hear that a settlement between the federal government and Microsoft 
has been reached. Considering the terms of the agreement, Microsoft 
did not get off easily. In fact, Microsoft has to make several 
significant changes to the way that they handle their business. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to make available to its competitors, 
any protocols implemented in Windows' operating system products that 
are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft server 
operating system.
    With the many terms of the agreement, I see no reason to pursue 
further litigation on any level.
    Sincerely,
    Anna McNeil



MTC-00010533

From: Schulman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After the United States Government pursued breaking up the phone 
company at great cost to the taxpayer, the ultimate result was 
higher costs for service, poorer quality service, nuisance 
competitive advertising and illegal switching of services, and the 
little Bells are starting to merge together to improve service, 
reduce cost and get a better handle on management.
    Regarding the Microsoft Settlement, all I see is that the United 
States Government is demonstrating again that it did not learn from 
historical reference. Ultimately, the consumer will not benefit, the 
taxpayer will have footed an enormous cost, and Microsoft will end 
up the winner anyhow. It's a lose/lose game and the Government is 
making the rules to make sure that the real loser is still the 
consumer.
    I think the United States Government cannot run private business 
as well as private

[[Page 25313]]

business can. As it is, there are too many incompetent 
administrators with guaranteed job security and high salaries in the 
government that would have been fired in the private sector for 
excessive waste of profits and poor business handling.
    I would grade the Government's efforts in this matter a C 
minus--and that is being generous.
    After all, the private sector cannot provide a military with 
such waste and lost records as has been shown time and time again 
and still manage to protect our country with other people's money as 
our Government can.
    DENNIS SCHULMAN
    9591 128TH TERRACE N
    LARGO FL 33773



MTC-00010534

From: Ishmel Taylor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/11/02  10:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ishmel Taylor
    11059 Continental
    Warren, MI 48089-1734
    January 11, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ishmel Taylor



MTC-00010535

From: Edna Earle Crews
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:04pm
Subject: End The Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse
    Dear Sirs:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and was a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending acompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Take action soon.
    Sincerely,
    Edna Earle and Raiford Crews
    2087 Crews Lane
    Crystal Springs, MS 39059



MTC-00010536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
    GENTLEMEN:
    BASED ON WHAT NEWS WE HAVE , I FEEL THAT THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE 
IS BIASED AGAINST MICROSOFT AND SYMPATHETIC TO APPLE CO AND OTHER 
COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT.
    I DO NOT SEE APPLE COMPUTOR DONATING ANY EQUIPMENT TO ANY 
SCHOOLS OF NEEDY CHILDREN, BUT YET THEY CRITICIZE MICROSOFT AS BEING 
UNFAIR OR WANTING AN ADVANTAGE TO PENETRATE THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH 
THEIR WARES. BECAUSE THE COMPETITORS ARE UNABE TO COMPETE WITH 
MICROSOFT THEY TURN TO ENLIST THE COURTS FOR THEIR BENEFIT ON THE 
BASIS THAT THEY HURT THE THE PUBLIC.
    I AM GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THEIR PRODUCTS AND 
WHAT MICROSOFT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO OUR ECONOMY IF THEIR DONATION WAS 
INSUFFICIENT WHY DID NOT THE COURT JUST ASK FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.
    THE COURTS SHOULD WAKE UP AND NOT BE SO DUPED BY THE STATES 
ATTORNEY GENERALS WHO ARE STILL NOT SATISFIED AND THE COMPANIES WHO 
COULD NOT DEFEAT THE ASTUTE MANAGEMENT.
    THINK ABOUT ALL THE INVESTORS IRA'S AND PENSION PLANS THAT HAVE 
BEEN DEVASTED THE COURTS EVEN SAW FIT TO REFUSE MICROSOFT ADDITIOAL 
TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE CONTINUED CHARGES .
    IT SEEMS THAT THIS LETS KEEP GANGING UP ON MICROSOFT BY THE 
ENEMIES OF MICROSOFT IS GETTING TO BE STANDARD PROCEDURE BY THE 
COURTS AND SOME BIASED STATES.
    THE FINAL OUTCOME THEREFOR IS THAT THESE NEEDY CHILDREN WILL BE 
DEPRIVED OF THIS BENEFICIAL EQUIPMENT. I HAVE NOOT SEEN ANY 
CONTRIBUTION FROM APPLE AND
    OTHER COMPETITOIRS JUDGE YOU HAVE HURT THESE CHILDREN ACALAPAI



MTC-00010539

From: Joan B. DeMarcus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I will be brief. The U.S. should adopt laissez-faire 
capiltalism. Let Microsoft go.
    Microsoft dominated the market because it was the most 
productive and efficient company in its marketing field. 
Productivity and efficiency are virtues. No person or company should 
be punished for their virtues.
    As for the U.S. antitrust laws, they are fraudulent and should 
be repealed.
    Joan B. DeMarcus



MTC-00010540

From: Anita
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with this action and think the government would be 
better served if they would quit undermining the businesses that 
keep this country running head and shoulders above all the others.
    Thank you,
    A.L. Farina



MTC-00010541

From: Chris Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/11/02  11:40pm
Subject: Make an informed decision
    I just spent 9 days trying to make a Microsoft Windows 2000 
server work with a Unix SAMBA server. (SAMBA is an NT4 compatible 
open source protocol so that windows users can access unix file 
systems as if they were windows file systems.) If you research the 
history of Samba and the nightmares they have had trying to figure 
out how Microsoft uses the SMB protocol, you will quickly see the 
efforts Microsoft goes through to break the Samba compatibility. 
Each time a new version of windows comes out, it is just different 
enough to cause problems for Samba/Unix administrators. As an 
administrator, once you spend 9 days trying to find a problem (and 
the problem is directly related to microsoft keeping the protocols 
secret and changing the protocols) you curse Microsoft.
    After cursing them, you realize why some companies only use 
Microsoft --because MS has made it near impossible to use anything 
else but them. The second thing to consider is the same tactics 
related to MS Office. Each version uses a new format (which again is 
secret). Not only does this make it near impossible to use Corel 
Office, et al, it also forces customers to upgrade MS Office when a 
new version comes out because the old version is not compatible with 
the new version. Our company has to share files with other companies 
and if we can't open their files, then we can't do business with 
them. If they use MS Office, then we have to be able to support that 
too. We have been trying to use Corel Office which is a fraction of 
the cost, but the inability to keep up with Microsoft's file format 
changes might force us to drop $50,000 into getting 200 users onto 
MS Office.
    Now, not only does MS force you to upgrade... most companies 
prefer to upgrade their office applications every 4 years, but 
Microsoft's new licensing policies will require companies to upgrade 
every 2 years. Where are the choices for the users? Sure, you can 
choose other options but you may not remain in business if you do 
because of the external forces of MS as I listed above. Beware .Net, 
the new Comcast/ATT cable deal, Xbox, ERP things they are planning, 
etc,

[[Page 25314]]

and you have an ever more dangerous MS. Don't just think of 
punishing their past, but controlling their current actions and 
future actions. They are more of a threat right now than they ever 
have been. The current DOJ proposal's are the equivalant of dropping 
the case. A $1 billion dollar cash penalty plus restrictions still 
may not stop them (do you realize how much cash they have in the 
bank?) and the current proposal doesn't even get near this.
    Chris



MTC-00010542

From: mitchen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    email: [email protected]
    Fax 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am a software developer and IT professional. I've been 
following the Microsoft Antitrust case and recent developments with 
the DOJ settlement. As a professional, I can testify that Microsoft 
is a monopoly and its dominance affects average consumer who have to 
pay a high price for a not so good product. To give you an example 
of a monopoly, let me ask you if you have a TV set at home? When you 
purchased your TV, did you go to a big store where a sales person 
helped you to choose among dozens, if not hundreds, of different 
models, didn't her/she? Even if you went to a small shop on the 
corner, you probably looked at a few models anyway. When you brought 
your TV home and hooked it up to your antenna or satellite dish, how 
many channels can you watch? Probably more than one, at least. You 
get your network channels, your cable channels, your public 
television, and of course all these home shopping channels on all 
kinds of airwaves spectrum. Now, please let me know what would it be 
called, if you go to a store to buy a TV and all the brands and 
models belong to the same manufacturer.
    Well, you want to watch TV, so even if all the sets are made in 
one place, based on one technology, rely on the same set of commands 
and have the same menu for operations, you still would buy it, 
because again, you really want to watch TV and you don't care about 
the brand that much. Ok, you brought your TV home, you hooked it up 
to whatever you have: antenna on the roof, your satellite dish, you 
cable or all of the above. You are done working, it's time to have 
fun. You grab you coke and pop-corn, get in your favorite chair, 
grab the remote and push the Power button. Ta-da! You are watching 
it and everything is great but suddenly you are starting to notice 
that you can watch only certain channels. And the stingiest thing is 
that you are watching only channels which are owned by the same 
company which manufactured your TV. Even though there are a lot of 
channels to choose from and they offer a seemingly great number of 
topics and programming, they still all originated in the same place 
where your TV set was made. Your friend tells you about some other 
channels which you can't get on your TV.
    You have to go through enormous pain to get those ``other'' 
channels on your TV: you have to call that nerdy guy from work and 
have him do some magic work on your TV, downloading and installing 
different special systems to allow compatibility of your TV with 
``other'' channels. Ok, you spent enough time and effort to get your 
TV fully compatible with all channels and programs. Few months 
(weeks, days, minutes) later, you get news from the company which 
manufactured your TV that your set is very insecure, full of hidden 
problems, dangerous to operate if you don't know what you are doing 
and all your neighbors can see what's going on in your living room 
through your new TV set's screen. You are panicking, you are calling 
tech support, the nerdy guy from work and other experts in TV so 
that they protect your privacy and your living room. Again, almost 
all the problems seem to be solved, but you are a little bit jumpy 
and you don't look at your new TV the same way as only a short time 
ago. There are still some problems with your TV. Did I mention that 
you can't buy VCR, DVD player, stereo or any other system to connect 
to your TV, unless it's also manufactured by the same company that 
made your TV set? And of course, VCR tapes and DVD discs that you 
rent at your favorite rental store must only be made by... guess 
who? You got it, your TV set manufacturer! But even this is not the 
worst part. Soon you hear again from the manufacturer that all 
remaining problems with your TV will be fixed in the new model which 
you must buy to ensure that your viewing pleasure continues since 
the company is changing format of all its TV, radio, video, etc. 
programming and only the new model TV set will be able to receive 
it. Devastated, you through away your ``old'' but still perfectly 
good TV set (except that it's kind of useless now) and get in line 
at your favorite big (or small) TV store to buy the new latest and 
greatest TV set. And the story continues again and again in the same 
manner.
    So, do you think that this is a monopoly? I hope you do, and I 
hope that you will pass this message around to other people in DOJ. 
Please let me know if you have any question or if I can be of any 
help to you and your colleagues in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Alexander Mitchen
    IT developer



MTC-00010543

From: Cristea, Eugen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/12/02  12:19am
Subject: monopol == no good
    Dear Judge,
    I believe there are thousands of e-mails regarding this case.I 
will try all my best to be short and sharp. In 1999 i have to buy a 
new computer because my old one was very slow.Usual, computer prices 
are droping every few months.At that time the situation was 
different and special the cost for the memory was up.Why?There was a 
big earthquake in Taiwan and Taiwan is a main memory producer. In a 
few months everything was back to normal but i believe you 
understand my point.In this case it was a natural disaster, but it 
could be anything.Your car has two separate brake circuits in case 
one of them fails.What if Microsoft will get bought by a sick mind 
like those responsible for the 11-th september.There are many ways 
things could go wrong in this situation.It's risky to put your money 
in just one place.
    Anyway, life will go on with or without Microsoft.Roman Empire 
was powerfull and invincible for a long time but it disapear in the 
final.
    just a small dot in this world,
    eugen



MTC-00010544

From: Ishtiyaq Bhatti
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/12/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am an educated housewife and mother, having a master's degree 
in education. I've opted to stay at home since I have a 22 month old 
baby.
    I came to know through a friend some of the aspects of the 
Proposed Settlement made by the Justice Department with Microsoft, 
and I am displeased by them. Firstly, how could the Justice 
Department grant Microsoft a government-mandated monopoly of the 
software industry and even worse-- other technology markets? 
Definitely such decision would seriously jeopardize all serious 
competitors - both now and in the future. We're living in a free and 
capitalistic society, and one of the advantages of it is that people 
have the right to choose from among several brands of one single 
item, and in this case, software. I would want to see a healthy 
competition of several software companies, in order to make prices 
competitive as well. Secondly, how could the Justice Department 
condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust law and even for its 
illegal conduct e.g. bribing other competitors in order to stop 
their operation. What is the Justice Department's motive behind this 
action?
    Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice for the 
good of this present as well as the future generation.
    Respectfully,
    Meldy Bhatti
    P.O. Box 184
    Rantoul, IL 61866



MTC-00010545

From: Lucio DiGiovanni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  12:30am
    Microsoft has Not been dealt a fair deal
    A fair deal would have been to be split Microsoft up so that 
Apple could have had a chance to sell a more consumer friendly 
product for the past 5 years instead of being squashed to 5% market 
share.



MTC-00010546

From: Kay Schenk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  12:31am
Subject: Micsrosoft Settlement

[[Page 25315]]

    Kay Schenk, MizK
    ``The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to 
deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.'' -- 
Abraham Lincoln
    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the judges and 
counsel involved in the Microsoft antitrust case, #98-1232, for 
allowing public comment on your final decision. I'm sure by now you 
have received many responses from interested citizens like myself.
    I hold a master's degree in Computer Science which I obtained in 
1976. I've worked continually with computers since that time. My 
occupational setting has been primarily with academic institutions 
where I have been involved in many different roles since 1976: as 
computing support personnel, as a programmer, and in my current 
title as Web Master for the two main web sites at California State 
University, Chico. Needless to say, I have lived through more 
changes in the computer industry than I can even remember at this 
point.
    I have attempted to follow this particular antitrust against 
Microsoft for several reasons not the least is my current 
involvement in Web development, where the ``browser'' software of 
course is an integral component. However, what I find really 
interesting is that it was this particular piece of software 
apparently caused this complaint to be filed. (I don't really define 
this as ``middleware'' since that term carries a very different 
connotation to me.)
    In my mind, many of Microsoft's business practices, this being 
just one of many, have certainly been worthy of this type of 
complaint. But I digress. I read with interest the ``Competitive 
Impact Statement'' that was posted to the DOJ Web site around mid 
November, 2001. What I found particularly interesting was this 
statement: Appropriate injunctive relief in an antitrust case 
should: (1) end the unlawful conduct; (2)``avoid a recurrence of the 
violation''; and, (3) undo its anti-competitive consequences. 
Additionally, you state that:
    Restoring competition is the ``key to the whole question of 
antitrust remedy''. You then go on in this same paragraph (section 
IV.B. of the ``Competitive Impact Statement'') to describe how 
Microsoft's illegal conduct maintained the application barrier to 
entry in the personal computer operating systems market by its 
practice with the particular middleware product, its Internet 
Explorer browser.
    Unfortunately, in my mind anyway, this is only one very small 
instance of the type of practices carried out by Microsoft for years 
to thwart any and all development not only in the PC operating 
systems market but the PC applications market as well. And, I don't 
feel your proposed Final Judgment will fulfill the any of the goals 
of ``injunctive relief'' at all in the long run. Much more has gone 
on in the computer industry since this complaint was filed in 1998, 
and I can tell you with absolutely certainty, that many more 
anticompetitive moves and harmful monopolistic practices have been 
carried out by Microsoft in these last five years. Some, even, have 
severely compromised the entire Internet. The initial complaint 
contains 129 paragraphs of description. They seem to provide a good 
overview of Microsoft's former practices with OEMs with respect to 
the installation of the Windows operating system and severe 
restrictions placed on these OEMs concerning the installation of 
other, many better, non-Microsoft products. Frankly, I don't see the 
current case so much as directly realting to the browser product, as 
the incredible amount of market share Microsoft amassed from say 
1990-1998 because of these practices and others.
    Because Microsoft controls the PC operating systems market, it 
found a way to convince your office for one, that certain features 
it ``incorporated'' into more recent versions of its operating 
system, Windows 95, for example, were really part and parcel of the 
OS, and not just unnecessary elements it decided to include to 
increase its share in other markets. Incorporating Internet Explorer 
directly into Windows 95, and not easily removed, was just one such 
tactic. At about the same time, Microsoft made significant strides, 
fully aware of the Internet's expansion about that time, to include 
``monitoring'' pieces, if you will, into the Windows 95 operating 
system to basically track users without their knowledge. Many of 
these ``features'' were well publicized on the Internet when 
discovered and ways were found to disable them much to Microsoft's 
chagrin, I dare say. I'm sure you must be aware of a letter to 
President Clinton by Ralph Nader on July 26, 1995 concerning some of 
this.
    In reality, something like browser ``middleware'' is not even 
remotely required by an operating system, whose only function really 
is to provide a means to address the memory available and devices 
attached to your machine, and load some modicum of software 
processing power into memory to enable you to program your computer. 
Anything else on top of this primary function, I classify as 
``utilities'' or ``user interfaces'' or ``software applications''. 
Browsers, as an entity, do not really pose any threats from a 
competitive standpoint to operating systems in my mind. If this is 
Microsoft's excuse for their conduct, I stand dumbfounded.
    The Final Judgment certainly is a step forward in curtailing 
Microsoft's current unethical practices, but it certainly does not 
mitigate, in any way, prior grievances not does it prevent the kind 
of development practices that have basically enabled Microsoft to 
totally dominate the PC OS market to begin with.
    The biggest positive of this Judgment in my opinion is the 
requirement that Microsoft provide its Apis and Communications 
Protocol specifications to developers and and OEMS (sections III.D. 
and III.E.) Although this requirement does not ``open up'' what 
Microsoft considers its operating system, it will at least hopefully 
provide the development community at large much needed information 
on how others can provide comparable ``middleware'' products.
    However, even this requirement comes with a loophole that the 
Justice department will no doubt find difficult to challenge if one 
were to believe Microsoft. Section III.J.1. states that Microsoft is 
not obligated to provide APIA information which it feels ``would 
compromise the security of a particular installation or group of 
installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing .... 
``I would guess given our current Internet computing environment, 
that Microsoft might claim that major portions of its Windows OS 
might fall into this umbrella definition. The upshot of such a 
loophole will be that Microsoft will continue to capitalize on its 
monopoly power and reveal very little that will directly benefit 
additional developers. Microsoft has attained much of its OS 
monopoly power by developing its own applications, which just 
coincidentally work best with its own OS. This is no accident. It is 
absolutely because Microsoft has refused to disclose certain details 
of the Windows internals to the development community at large.
    The appointment of a Technical Committee (detailed in Section 
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures) seems to be a great 
requirement at first look. However, I question the politeness of 
allowing Microsoft to be involved at all in choosing these 
individuals. This is nonsense.
    I also highly object to the restrictions placed on the TC 
members in terms of public access and accountability to the public. 
This antitrust suit presumably serves the public interest! And only 
that. The only communication from the public at large that I can 
decipher from the Judgment is item IV.B.8.d.:
    ``The ETC shall complaints from the Compliance Officer, third 
parties, or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified 
in section IV.D. below''. I guess I would have to ask: what third 
parties? Who do I complain to as a private citizen? My state 
attorney general? Additionally, nowhere in this Judgment is there a 
mechanism for even informing the public who these TC members are. 
This is the Internet age. Given th enormous public exposure of this 
case with nearly all pertaining information posted to the DOJ Web 
site that this rather critical follow-up is completely shrouded in 
privacy.
    In this regard, I find items IV.B.9 and IV.B.10 especially of 
concern. I don't think Microsoft should have the opportunity to 
govern how the implementation of this part of the Judgment is 
implemented. And this is what seems to be taking place in the 
description of these two points. Additionally, I find the payment of 
the TC by Microsoft troublesome without further details. Why 
wouldn't an escrow account to which Microsoft contributes a fixed 
annual amount simply be established based on cost estimates? It 
seems incredibly unwise for Microsoft to be directly in charge of 
paying the TC. Again, it is difficult to determine actual 
implementation details based on what you've published.
    These are specific issues I have with the Final Judgment as it 
is currently written. However, like many, I feel this Judgment is 
woefully inadequate in addressing the ``larger'' issues of 
Microsoft's business practices, which are integrally tied to its 
monopolistic position. Microsoft's unethical business practices are 
a direct result of its monopoly power and the desire to ensure that 
the proprietary APIs on which much of

[[Page 25316]]

the Windows environment has been built would be used as definitive 
``standards'' in nearly every aspect of computing--from the desktop 
to the Internet. To this end, Microsoft has attempted to thwart 
nearly every aspect of ``open standards'' that have existed for 
years. As early as 1995, Microsoft seemed to head a coalition of 
other vendors in opposing the ``interoperability'' specifications of 
HR 1555, the communications bill which provided, in part, the V-chip 
mechanism.
    More recently, in its OS distributions, Microsoft has badly 
implemented the core protocol used by the Internet, t??p/ip, thereby 
setting up a scenario leading to denial of service attacks on 
Windows/NT systems, one of which belonged to the U.S. Navy. While 
this might be attributed to innocent error, many of the Internet 
community believe such lack of quality testing is solely attributed 
to Microsoft's monopoly power and a basic ``we don't have to care'' 
attitude. Microsoft's security problems are so well-known they are 
documented in literally thousands of sites on the Internet. This 
scenario wouldn't be quite so fearsome if Microsoft only sold 
products to businesses who, hopefully, would have the technical 
expertise to deal with them. But this is not the case in our current 
society where, according to a U.S. Census report in August, 2000, 
42% of households had Internet access. Many of these consumers have 
very little awareness, much less actual knowledge, of computer 
security problems and what they could ultimately mean. More 
sophisticated hacking techniques like distributed denial of service 
attacks, coupled with total lack of prevention or precaution by 
household computer users, spells enormous problems! Microsoft is not 
only a key player in this problem, but, according to nearly every 
reliable source dealing with computer security issues, THE key player. The 
reason why is simple--they're a monopoly, they don't have to care.
    Microsoft itself is now so concerned about its reputation in 
this area that it has publicized that ``white hat'' hackers who 
expose these problems only add to the problem. This is ludicrous! Is 
it not the vendor's responsibility to fully test such products under 
many adverse conditions to determine worthiness. Apparently not for 
Microsoft, who, in its zeal to rush products to market, has not 
taken the time, or can't be concerned enough to take the time! More 
recently, according to a post to a well-know British web site on 12/
13/2001, Microsoft continues its highly debatable business practices 
by essentially ``bribing'' security by offering them upwards of 
approximately $30,000 worth of software for $1,450:
    ``All you have to do is keep silent about any Microsoft security 
bugs you might discover, until Redmond authorizes you to speak.
    Oh, and you have to employ at least two exclusive Microsoft 
Certified Professionals, such as MCSEs.''
    The story gets better but I'll spare you the details.
    My point in all this is simple. Microsoft has employed unethical 
business practices from its inception. It continues these practices 
even I write this. This Final Judgment will not stop those 
practices. There are too many loopholes and the implementation, 
however well-intentioned, is fraught with problems. Microsoft is a 
monopoly and as such operates the way most monopolies do with little 
concern for quality, customer satisfaction, or long-term innovation.
    They exist to conquer competition in any way possible including 
but not limited to marketing products of exceptionally poor quality 
with the expectation that the consumer will just buy into it because 
it's the only game in town.
    The main function of any antitrust remedy in my mind is to 
protect the consumer. Your other goals are worthwhile but not really 
the main point. Your Final Judgment does little really to protect 
the consumer and in fact, denies the consumer access to intricacies 
of the Judgment itself. The best outcome of this case would be to 
divide Microsoft up into individual entities presumably an operating 
systems division, an applications division, and a networking 
division, sc at least, the hope anyway, the new divisions would at 
least be on equal footing with competitors and Microsoft might be 
prevented from deceiving consumers into believing all that is not 
really an operating system, is.
    Thank you for your consideration of this response.



MTC-00010547

From: Andrew Harrod
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Andrew Harrod, M.A.L.D.
1512 Bremerton Lane
Keswick, VA 22947-9148
(434) 295-8328
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to write in support of the proposed Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement. I feel that the American taxpayers have supported this 
law suit long enough and that it is time to move on.
    Andrew E. Harrod



MTC-00010548

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:04am
Subject: Microsoft Overcharging
    I think the charge that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to 
overcharge the consumer is ludicrous. Don't understand how they can 
be coincidentialy charged with overcharging the consumer and also 
bundling additional capability into their products at no / low cost 
to drive their competitors out of business. Also, it is clear that 
Microsoft has been a catlyst for innovation in the computer 
technology field rather than an inhibtor. Let's move on to something 
more important like the pillage of Enron.



MTC-00010549

From: Bill Adams
To: Microsoft ATR


Date: 1/12/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Microsoft also known herein as MS has intentionally restricted 
use of the java programming language as an included feature in their 
new browsers, siting various and conflicting criteria for doing so. 
This prevents millions of websites with such existing technology 
from having it used, prohibits good and fair trade and stifles 
innovation. This feature can be worked around by the many of 
millions of developers who created the content at a tremendous 
expense in time and energy. A free web site that I developed (http:/
/www.SeeMyDesign.com) and continue provide for the good of society, 
employs such technology and has been running successfully since 1997 
but key features will become defunct because MS chooses to hurt the 
end user.
    This removal of industry standard functionality (has been free 
and available for 5!! years in all browsers) is in light of MS 
bundling many other features in the operating system which have the 
effect of promoting and locking the users into the MS operating 
environment and in effect, becoming free to those that purchase a 
computer.
    An example is the .mov movie MIME type that Apple computer 
utilizes to dislay their interactive content on the windows 
platforms. This change prevents Apple quicktime from properly 
displaying and playing in to name an example: Windows2000. No 
message or information is provided. This specific example can be 
seen when viewing Quicktime VR content. Not only does a message not 
pop-up in the browser indicating the content cannot be displayed, 
but nothing happens at all--which for the average user, won't know 
what action to take.
    This small example is MS mode of operation and has been since 
the beginning. I urge, beg and emplore you to make mandatory, an 
invitation from MS to 3rd party vendors to include their windows-
certified softwares with the MS operating system install media 
(CD's, etc.). I also strongly feel that MS should be penalized for 
their past actions of which penalty should be of monetary nature and 
provide good to the whole of humanity such as providing learning 
material to schools, but NOT providing software and computer which 
exasterbate the problem. Thank you for your consideration of these 
issues and for providing a conscious for those that do not know 
technology well enough to make informed decisions and those that do 
know it well enough but don't use alternative tools because 
comparable ones are bundled with the operating system. PLEASE 
contact me if you have any questions, need a voice or would like 
additional opinions.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Adams--Founder, www.SeeMyDesign.com
    801-484-3319
    [email protected]



MTC-00010550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:26am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sir,
    Please stop harrassing Microsoft for being so successful. Bill 
Gates is one of the true heroes of this country. Please settle this 
case.

[[Page 25317]]


    Sincerely,
    John S. Samolitis
    1545 W. Chase #203
    Chicago, Il 60626
    773-764-5336



MTC-00010551

From: dusty holman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:47am
Subject: Microsoft
    I am retired from Texaco after 39 years as an electrical 
engineer.
    I think you will find that if it was not for Bill Gates that the 
computer industry would be in shambles.
    Microsoft standardized computers and their operating system. If 
it were not for Microsoft there would be chaos in operating systems 
and no one would be able to walk up to a computer anywhere and 
operate it.
    How does Bill Gates overcharge for his products? I was under the 
impression that in the USA you could charge anything you want to for 
your own products..............if folks don't want to buy it they 
don't have to.
    You can always go out and build your own operating system. Like 
Apple; like IBM. It is very simple as they found out.
    For some reason I think the Justice Department is trying to 
destroy Microsoft so the Chinese can take over 
computers..........wonder why I think that?
    Dusty Holman



MTC-00010552

From: Ruth Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:15am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am disappointed that the DOJ seems to have caved in to 
Microsoft. This is a company that engages in clearly unethical 
behavior. I can give you an example. A friend who is a consultant 
works closely with a business organization and had his email account 
through them and the ISP they used which also hosted their website. 
The organization decided to make online ordering of their products 
available to their customers.
    In order to do this they needed ``shopping cart'' software and 
decided to purchase that offered by Microsoft. They went to the 
appropriate website to download it and went through all the steps to 
do so. At the end when they clicked the button to complete the 
process, the Microsoft website hijacked their website off their 
ISP's server. They were unable to get the process undone. Phone 
calls to Microsoft were futile. They all lost their email access as 
a result
    I don't care how much money Bill Gates donated to politicians. 
This sort of behavior should be stopped.
    Ruth Harris
    Santa Rosa, CA



MTC-00010553

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:16am
Subject: Enough Already!
    This country became the Great Country it is because of the free 
marketplace. Why does the government feel it has the right to 
control any part or faction of that marketplace. It has to stop 
before you destroy the initiative of every small business in 
America. Whenever the opportunity arises for Attorneys of any ilk to 
practice their trade of twisted truths and distortions especially 
against the free will of businessmen in America we, as a country 
take another step towards their great socialist dream.
    Thomas Stansbury,
    Westminster, CA



MTC-00010554

From: madhavan.s. madhavan.s.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Sir,
    I strongly in line with Sun's view of the issue as i am a Java 
Developer and i am expecting the Java to play a leading and key role 
in developing portable,cross-platform applications . So please keep 
Microsoft out of this Monopolistic behaviour .
    Regards,
    S.Madhavan.
    MADHAVAN.S



MTC-00010555

From: T-Bird Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:42am
Subject: microsoft settlement
7288 Graydon Drive
North Tonawanda, NY 14120-1453
(716) 695-6104
January 11, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice,
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft anti- trust dispute. I support Microsoft and am eager to 
see this dispute come to a timely end. This agreement is thorough 
and was reached after extensive negotiations and three years of 
anti-trust dispute. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions 
outlined in this agreement, such as: disclosing more information 
about certain internal interfaces in Windows and granting computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non- 
Microsoft software programs. A technical oversight committee has 
been created to monitor Microsoft compliance, and companies can sue 
Microsoft if they feel the company is not complying.
    We are facing very difficult economic times. We must do all we 
can to focus on our lagging economy. It is time to let Microsoft 
move on and forward. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Miller



MTC-00010556

From: Dean Stephens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  2:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


    Dean Stephens
    6310 Green Valley Circle #305
    Culver Cith, CA 90230
    January 12, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial was always just one more of the ongoing 
trial lawyer witch hunts. It is high time for this trial to be over. 
In a hundred years, the people involved in witch hunts such as the 
tobacco trials, and the Microsoft trial, will be reviled and 
despised with the same feelings we have today for the bogts who 
burned witches at the stale. And the investors who propel our 
economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief, even as the innocent 
victims of the previous witch hunts finally found peace.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of serving 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views on the 
disgusting behavior of America's courts and its slimey lawyers.
    Regards,
    Dean Stephens



MTC-00010557

From: Chris Stackhouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep the settlement as is. It has been agreed to by most of the 
parties, the lawsuit and penalty has clearly made its point, the 
donations will obviously improve access to computer technology for 
the poorest schools and kids. Only Microsoft competitors are 
complaining (or their state's attorneys general).
    It's time to move on.



MTC-00010558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Clinton spent 40 million going after Bill Gates rather than 
capture bin Laden when he had the chance. Now look where we're at 
and where are the priorities. Bill Gates is what America is about, 
the chance to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people and 
contribute to the economy and provide a lot of jobs. He used his 
brains to make a buck and many bucks for a lot of people. Because of 
the DOJ and some crybaby companies everyone in America has lost 
something. Leave it alone and go after something worthwhile. We in 
this family are angry.
    Mary Linker



MTC-00010559

From: Bebu Corp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Party,
    I think that the Microsoft Settlement is not enough. I work in a 
non-profit organisation providing refurnished old computers to the 
poor and disabled. Microsoft has prohibited us from refurnishing old 
computers with Windows 95 on them. While this operating system is 
old and unsupported by Microsoft anymore, they still require us to 
obtain a 

[[Page 25318]]


license to ``give away'' these donated computers.
    I wish that the settlement will consider organisations like ours 
because we are not breaking hurting anyone but Microsoft is still 
screwing us up. Those computers were donated to us for free and we 
simply format the computers, install the old Windows 95 or Windows 
3.1 with slower computers, and donate them to new immigrants, poor 
families, disabled people and orphan homes. We make no money and all 
of our helpers are doing voluntary work.
    Yours Faithfully,
    Daniel



MTC-00010560

From: Thamaraiselvan P
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    i am strongly opposing Micorosoft Monopoly. This will slowdown/
reduce the innovative software development/products. They should 
provide API/Specification for their products like WORD/EXCEL etc. 
thanx..
    ThamaraiSelvan.P
    Member Technical Staff--ADG
    E-mail : [email protected]
    Phone : 5522252/7 ext :511
    www.Planetasia.com
    ``You don't know what you can get away with until you try.''



MTC-00010561

From: rumpwrr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:33am
Subject: Settelment
    For God sake settle this thing now. Microsoft is only guilty of 
creating a standard operating system that allows all computers to 
easily communicate. Designing a useful standard is why ``Windows'' 
is popular not because Microsoft has some sort of manopoly. If the 
competion in the nine states can't compete let them go out of 
business.bill Rumpza



MTC-00010562

From: James Wine
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  3:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    James Wine
    5817-20th Ave
    Sacramento, CA 95820-3107
    January 12, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Wine



MTC-00010563

From: jean martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time, and long past, to get the Microsoft antitrust 
case settled and done with. I am almost sure that the very beginning 
of the economic downturn we are currently trying to climb out of, 
was first initiated due to the anti-business, anti-capitalist 
attitude of the previous Administration. I am in full support of the 
current Administration in its desire to get this case settled 
without further action. Enough is enough. Please ``call off the 
dogs''.
    Jean L. Martin, M.A., M.S.S.W. (retired)
    Richardson, Texas



MTC-00010564

From: Evans Hollandsworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:19am
Subject: get over it
    Microsoft is definitely guilty!!!!!!!--of using the ``free 
enterprise'' system which i think has made this country great. Why 
do we//You want to punish someone for being very successful???
    The folks that are pushing these suits are mad cause they didn't 
have the foresight, intelligence, determination that Bill Gates had.
    Gates has given the whole world a usable product.
    Let him alone!!!!
    Evans Hollandsworth



MTC-00010565

From: Philipp Resl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am part of the worldwide network that is working to get BeOS 
back into the market place, but there is no hope to succes if the 
following issues aren't addressed:
    At first I think it is important to make dual-boot options 
mandatory, moreover open Office file formats would be a great thing.


    I hope this letter helps, and I wish you all the best for your 
Settlement!
    with regards,
    Philipp Resl



MTC-00010566

From: sangchul shin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much concerned about the possibility that Microsoft 
continue its monoploy on the desktop operating system. It has been 
proven several times that Microsoft in fact have used its monopoly 
position to crush the competition. And that is precisely what the 
court has found: Microsoft broke the law. Now I am amazed U.S. 
government's leniency toward Microsoft. I want to make sure that you 
know I am utterly opposed to the US government position on this 
matter and call for more severe punishment against Microsoft.



MTC-00010567

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Your proposed settlement with Microsoft is unbelievably lenient. 
It is as if you were not in the courtroom when the evidence was 
presented. The best observer of this case was Judge Jackson. What 
the appeals court had to say about his opinions missed the fact that 
he observed the evidence being presented.
    I have been in the software business for 20 years. It is my 
opinion that your settlement does not go far enough.
    Don't cash your checks from Microsoft. Somebody might find out 
that you have been bought.
    I am a Texan, a republican, and a Bush supporter, but if I find 
out that Bush had anything to do with this settlement, he will not 
get my vote next election.
    Go back to what Judge Jackson thought was appropriate. His 
supposed BIAS could not have been pre-existing. His opinions were 
formulated based on the evidence presented by David Boies.
    You have made a mistake, fix it.
    Dick Hollenbeck
    President, SoftPLC Corporation
    SoftPLC, Open Architecture Control Software
    [email protected]
    Ph: 512/264-8390
    Fx: 512/264-8399
    http://www.softplc.com
    I want to be what I was, when I wanted to be what I am now.



MTC-00010568

From: Brent L. Roulier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:50am
Subject: DOL Settlement with Microsoft.
    The time has come to bring this case to a close. The proposed 
settlement needs to be implemented. We need to get the economy 
moving forward, Every minute of delay further hurts America.
    Brent & Diane Roulier



MTC-00010569

From: Mike Strong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:11 am
Subject: CC scolding sent to Microsoft
    You will never be able to volunteer a resolution to your 
infractions because you are incapable of recognizing any culpability 
for 

[[Page 25319]]


inappropriate, anti-competitive practices on your part. In your 
minds, if there is ANY competition remaining in the universe, on any 
level, on any product, you are totally justified (in your minds) to 
pursue the most aggressive, monopolistic behaviors that you can you 
squelch that nook of remaining resistance.
    The inanity of your settlement proposal of dumping a billion 
dollars or so of your own products onto the public sector as a token 
apology for crimes and indiscretions you obviously do not believe 
that you've even committed is more than ludicrous. It's insulting. 
You are flooding the educational sector with your own products, 
fostering a future dependency on your products.., which computer 
companies have done as an explicit marketing strategy for decades 
(DEC was the best at this during the seventies with Universities, 
and Apple in elementary schools). In addition to taking all the 
benefits of that, business-wise, you try to spin it as some sort of 
spectacularly sacrificial consolation for your detractors. While you 
are patting yourselves on your backs, I should think that you are 
probably writing it all off your corporate taxes at the same time. 
While I don't know that you've had the audacity to pull that third 
maneuver, I would expect it. I do not fault the tactic as a business 
tactic. Rather, I am incensed that you would try to blatantly spin 
it as penance.
    As a computer professional who has developed on your platforms 
for 15 years, and who has developed products targeted for Microsoft 
platforms all during that time, I have had enough. You have 
virtually never cooperated with good, industry standards. Everyone 
else involved always mistrusts your participation on various 
standards committees. You only feign to go along for a short time to 
get your bearings until you can finalize plans for your own, 
proprietary, parallel standard. You want the world to only have you 
or the rest of the world to choose from standards wise, and you work 
feverishly to make use what they are already dependent upon you for 
to coerce them into accepting your proprietary alternatives to 
emerging standards.
    Microsoft should have embraced J2EE..NET is a total offense to 
me professionally. Your subscription-licensing model, while suitable 
in a few contexts, where clear, on-going service and value are being 
provided, is otherwise a subtle trap that you are laying down. 
Because some people have become content with earlier versions of 
certain MS products that have been perfectly adequate for them, you 
cannot bear having them not make their annual sacrifice at your 
alter. You feel compelled to ensnare everyone into putting out their 
financial arm for an unending IV transfusion into your wallet. You 
want to be the all-encompassing public utility for all activities, 
all commerce, all enterprise functionality and endeavors.
    The fact that you have done many good things, and made many 
wonderful products that all of us want to support you in, such as 
Microsoft Word, et al, makes your excesses, indiscretions, and greed 
all the more egregious and scandalous.
    You must be resisted by the most aggressive means. I will 
boycott your products and services every chance I can in every 
context that I can, and I will actively encourage others to do so, 
until and unless you demonstrate some willingness to behave well. 
While aggressive competitiveness is the ``American way'', it comes 
with rules of engagement and fair play. If you've won 90% of the 
monopoly board, you must be reconciled to the fact that you have to 
begin to play the game differently. What was OK 15 to 20 years ago, 
can no longer be the mind set by which you operate today.
    Either accept the separation of the OS business from the 
applications business, or accept public-utility style regulation. 
You have to accept one or the other at this point, or you will be 
taking a position of overt evil. No amount of rationalization or 
word-smithing will be able to assuage the wrath you will deserve.
    Mike Strong HM: 512-259-0723
    321 Mesa Oaks MBL: 512-970-0637
    Leander, TX 78641-8937 FAX: 413-581-3847



MTC-00010570

From: John Bintz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the two most important parts of this settlement are the 
IE bundling with Windows to kill Netscape and the inability for OEMs 
to allow dual-booting PCs. For the longest time, Netscape had the 
much superior product to Microsoft, but once IE became bundled with 
Windows, and the only way to get an alternative browser was to 
download a several megabyte file over a phone line connection, most 
average users say, ``What's the point? I've got the `e' here. I'll 
just use that.'' The average user balks at both file downloading and 
program installation. It's no wonder Netscape holds so little market 
share right now, and what is lest is slowly eroding away (my work's 
Web traffic logs indicate that 80% of external traffic right now is 
IE, 15% is Netscape).
    The dual boot restriction on OEM PCs also killed the Be software 
company and their competing operating system BeOS. BeOS was a very 
powerful, Unix/Amiga-like platform built from the ground up to be 
the ultimate media processing foundation. Hitachi wanted to make a 
dual boot Windows/BeOS machine, but because of OEM restrictions, 
users of the Hitachi FLORA had to go through numerous steps to 
enable the BeOS part of the hard drive. No normal user could be 
expected to follow all these steps just to enable an alternative 
operating system. Their response? ``But it goes to Windows just 
fine! Why do I need this Bee-thingy, anyway?''
    Microsoft's inability to give the users control is what makes 
them dangerous. If I want, I should be able to uninstall IE and put 
a competing browser in there to replace it. Had Microsoft opened up 
all of the


programming interfaces to the operating system, a competing browser 
(such as Netscape or its offshoot Mozilla, which is what I'm using 
right now) could seamlessly replace Internet Explorer and everyone 
would be happy. Had Microsoft allowed OEMs to give visible dual-
booting options, companies like Dell wouldn't have to produce two 
different lines of computers, one with Linux preinstalled and one 
with Windows installed (and Be might still be around). You could get 
a quad-booting Windows/Linux/FreeBSD/BeOS machine if you wished, and 
consumers would be happy.
    However, Microsoft is really taking advantage of the beginning 
and non-power computer users with their very sneaky tactics. Try 
explaining to a beginner that the `e' and the `n' do the same thing, 
but that the `n' is better. ``Why is it better? The `e' came with 
the computer!'' Or try explaining that there's different OSes out 
there than Windows and you can use two different ones on your 
computer. ``What, like those eyeMac thingies? My friend has one, and 
her Word is all different. I told her to get a Gateway, and now her 
Word looks right.'' It's the non-power users who are hurt most by 
this, because Microsoft's practices limit their exposure to anything 
non-Microsoft in any way they can.
    Thank you.



MTC-00010571

From: Maria Hans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:36am
Subject: antitrust case.
Blank213 Blazer Court
Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The reason I am writing to you is to express my support for the 
settlement that has been reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. 
After three years and millions of dollars spent, both parties in 
this case have agreed to bring it to an end. I plead with you to 
avoid those special interests that are trying to have this case 
resumed.
    This settlement, despite the objections of opponents, is 
equitable. With this settlement Microsoft has agreed to disclose its 
internal interfaces and other previously secret code to competitors. 
In fact Microsoft is sharing more secret information with 
competitors in this settlement than any computer company has ever in 
history shared. However for the opponents of the settlement this is 
not enough, some of them won't be happy until Microsoft is 
destroyed.
    As Microsoft is one the most important American companies, and a 
very large employer, I think it is wise to end the case against them 
and let them focus on business. With this settlement, that will be 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Hans/Maria Hans



MTC-00010573

From: Edward Hine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please keep the spirit of freedom which I feel Microsoft 
Corporation represents. It seems that competitors are trying to 
destroy this freedom with their own selfish goals.
    Next time on line,
    Andrea



[[Page 25320]]




MTC-00010574

From: curtis kreutzberg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
curtis kreutzberg
13623 south 300 east
draper, ut 84020
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    curtis kreutzberg



MTC-00010575

From: Mark Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:07am
Subject: Judgments
    Regards:
    1) I am a software professional that programs in a variety of 
areas.
    2) The fluid nature of our environment, particularly in the last 
few years (the internet in particular) is a diverse area to 
maintain, and requires knowledge of many areas.
    3) There needs to be some sort of standards so this medium can 
be of benefit to all, so for most needs, I use the non-profit/
impartial settings for this such as World Wide Web Consortium 
(www.w3.org) for compliance purposes.
    4) At some level in order to satisfy our clients, the ability to 
be portable and satisfy our clients becomes, more specfic regarding 
the operating environment they use vs. what we use to serve them.
    Case in point (as a developer, I consider this a perfect example 
of predatory practices):
    1) Internet Explorer 6.0, Microsoft dropped/ restricted it's use 
of software plugins, this changed a big area of the internet 
programming arena.
    How does this impact, what is predatory about it?
    Well there are several areas to consider.
    1) The User base, from a development standpoint most software 
professionals have accepted the fact that the user prefers Windows 
as the desktop, Mr. Gates has undoubtedly driven this, however many 
competitors, particulary in the free software arena have come about, 
it is up to us to educate the general public as we can about the 
alternatives.
    But by and large, the public is driving that end of the market.
    2) Since the public drives the market, what happens when 
Microsoft changes the game from a development standpoint? From a 
business perspective, it forces Microsoft's lack of support onto the 
support desks the of companies such as ourselves to resolve issues 
that were a direct result of Microsoft's broad power to totally 
change the market place. From an economics standpoint it can be 
argued that this creates jobs and generates spending, however, for 
the smaller businesses, this may not be an option.
    3) This move along with the `NET' initiative in the current 
release of Windows XP, further proves this predatory initiative 
further, from a programming perspective it (Microsoft) is again 
trying to garner market share through their vast influence by 
further negating those initialtives that are currently in place to 
try and establish a neutral ground for programming and delivery. How 
so? Well, any previously neutral options become, again driven by the 
public and the desktop, further forcing the programming community 
into a position of
    a) designing new methods to neutralize the change or...
    b) submitting for financial reasons to Microsoft's drive over 
the market.
    I can name numerous other instances of this practice through the 
last 15 years, I am sure you are aware of many of them, so I will 
not bother enlightening you as to these areas, unless, you inquire 
of me further.
    In general, the public (in our affluent society) is duped by the 
the `Wolf in Sheep's Clothing'; the only way to change this is to 
educate them. But I am increasingly concerned, that this amount of 
technology garnered in one area, is risky to the general nature of 
our world (not just the U.S.). It seems strange that in some arenas, 
there are virtually little or no virus attacks, but in Microsoft, it 
is daily news, not to mention our own military utilizes this 
technology (at least to some degree). I am not particularly a 
negative person, but the long term implications of this practice to 
continually drive market share and proliferate the use of a medium 
that is not only bug prone but has a high propensity to propogate 
rogue computer programs (as in viruses), is a scary thought indeed, 
since a lot of our government is driven by this very software.


    What would I do?
    Well, I do think Microsoft has a lot to be credited for, no I do 
not think they should be put out of business. They are doing what 
our capitalist society is supposed to do, go after the dollar. But 
there are ethical considerations that need to be addressed with the 
amount of power this company possesses, and no amount of publicists 
can address them through recommending humanitarian donations, and 
foundations for Microsoft to make them look better in the public's 
eyes. The fact of the matter is, is most of the public is oblivious 
to long term implications, nor do they care, until it effects them. 
Having said that, I will proceed...
    1) This power needs to be dispersed, i.e. it is so powerful, 
that if allowed to persist, at the very least, it needs a body to 
govern it, not unlike our government does, we know this as the 
`checks and balances' (the Judiciary Branch, The House and Senate, 
and the President).
    This method is the one that governs our capitalistic society, so 
it sould work and be fair for Microsoft.
    2) If you are not going to divide it up, so all this technology 
does not reside in one faceless giant's realm, at least develop a 
governing body consisting of consumer/technical expertise that has 
an unbiased and educated hand in this direction our society and 
technology has taken us. These people have to be unencumbered by 
lobbyists. There are many such organizations trying to do this now 
(though all may not be in our country). This is a basis for 
argument, but is is a compromise between break up or allowing these 
sensitive areas to be continually changed with the main 
consideration being market share.
    3) The alternative, if the above is not acceptable is to 
continue on with the original remedies proposed by breaking up 
Microsoft, as originally proposed. If the Department of Justice 
fails to provide a remedy to this, the potential to subvert our 
society exists and will only get easier if the power of this entity 
is not dispersed.
    It is my hope that this will be read with an open mind and with 
consideration, not just another faceless citizen. Until the last DOJ 
remedy, I have given much faith to my government to provide the 
correct course of action, however, I have become increasingly 
concerned with the methods of arriving at these judgements. I 
understand that some remedies will not meet with my own personal 
approval, and can live with that, but I feel a compelling need to 
appeal to the good of all, not just a base of satisfied internet 
users.
    There is more to this than meets the eye, it is not meant to be 
`evil' as some refer to it, but there does not appear to be a checks 
and balances system for this technology and I do not believe that it 
is a purely monopolistic approach. I equate the proliferation of 
this broad range of technology with the invention of the atomic 
bomb.
    With great freedom, comes great responsibility, and that 
responsibility also compels us to look further than our pocketbooks 
or predatory marketing practices. We have a responsibilty make our 
country aware of the power of this, and first we need to become 
responsible enough as a society to be able to use this technology 
both morally and safely.
    It has already showed it's (the technology) ability to be a very 
positive thing for humanity, but the negative uses are just as 
numerous.

[[Page 25321]]



    In summation, I do think something more appropriate than the 
current remedies is in order.
    I feel that too much power (not just market power) resides in 
this company's (Microsoft) ability to drive the market. This power 
needsto be dispersed.



MTC-00010576

From: Stephen T. Spray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:22am
Subject: Congratulations to Judge Motz
    Any knowledgable user of Microsoft products is fully aware of 
the bundling and the games they have played for years to frustrate 
competition from competitors.
    Congratulations to Judge Motz for taking a stand for open 
competition in the real spirit of what has made America great. A 
deal in which the guilty party is the architect of the punishment is 
the worst sort of abuse imaginable, but it is typical of Microsoft's 
arrogance that they would thing they could get by with it. I am so 
glad they have not--so far.
    Stephen T. Spray
    Huntsville, Alabama



MTC-00010577

From: Michael Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft has cost my father a couple of jobs, I have lost 
opportunities because of them. If I am going to say anything that 
sticks with you it is hack them up like at&t/ma-bell, if anyone is 
going to believe in the justice system it is on your heads. some of 
the things microsoft has done, and continues to do, I think could 
land someone like me in prison for life. but since they have so much 
money and influence they are getting a slap on the wrist. do you 
think people will believe in the justice system if the wealthy and 
powerful can walk all over it, but joe blow you or I die by it.
    Where is our david......? We have a rampaging Goliath!



MTC-00010578

From: Charles Crawford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has a superior product that has world wide 
distribution because it is the best. Let them continue to expand 
their technology for the benefit of all of us.
    Thank you.
    Charles P. Crawford



MTC-00010579

From: Paquette, Robert
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/12/02 10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
13 Osprey Drive
Berkley, MA 02779-2337
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the Justice Department. This agreement will be good for the public 
by allowing Microsoft to focus on more innovation and new software 
development.
    Although I did not agree with the commencement of this suit in 
the first place, I agree with Microsoft that it is time to move 
forward. One is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft 
software programs that compete with programs included within 
Windows. This will allow computer makers to replace access to 
various features of Windows with access to non-Microsoft software 
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks.
    As the Director of Technology for a small business in 
Massachusetts, I understand the importance of Microsoft's products 
for our economy. The company has done much to standardize 
development in this country and improve worker productivity. I trust 
your strong leadership for this settlement will continue.
    With highest regards,
    Robert Paquette
    cc: Representative Barney Frank



MTC-00010580

From: prockett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:31am
    Please support the original court's decision on microsoft. Bill 
Gates is way ahead of the crowd in ideas and they are jealous.
    Pat Rockett



MTC-00010581

From: Jerry (038) Phyllis Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Trial Comments
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing to ask the Justice Department to settle the 
Microsoft trial. I believe this trial has squandered taxpayers' 
dollars, and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. I have lost money on my Microsoft stock, as many others 
have. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. I believe a settlement of 
this case will be in the public interest. And I can think of better 
things to spend our taxpayer's money on than targeting another 
corporation.
    Sincerely,
    Phyllis Price


    P O Box 6307
    Maryville TN 37802.



MTC-00010582

From: Randall Weytens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To the United States Department of Justice,
    I am sending this letter in response to the U.S. Department of 
Justice's acceptance of public comments on the Microsoft Case.
    I do not think that Microsoft has violated any laws. This is why 
I think so: Microsoft is not a monopoly. A monopoly is only possible 
when other companies are not allowed to enter the marketplace by 
law, and Microsoft does not create or enforce the law.
    Microsoft has never used force in the marketplace. Microsoft has 
never told businesses to do something at the point of a gun. They 
trade only when the transaction will benefit them. To survive in the 
free marketplace, a business cannot sacrifice itself to others and 
be successful. Microsoft has not violated any businesses or 
individual rights. The only possible way to violate another's rights 
is to steal, damage or destroy private property (from the first form 
of property, a person's body, on up to material and intellectual 
property).
    I think the attack on Microsoft is illegal because:
    To tell Microsoft to give away their source code is a violation 
of property rights. They have purchased or developed their code 
legally, by themselves. It is intellectual property, and it is 
theirs.
    To break up the company is to violate their property rights. The 
company has a right to their property (everything from buildings to 
software source code), and therefore the right to bundle, integrate, 
or offer separately their software in any manner they choose. If 
someone does not like Microsoft software, buy something else. (There 
is Apple and Linux, to name a few, amongst others). Microsoft has 
brought value to the marketplace by offering affordable, well 
designed solutions that individuals all over the world use and 
enjoy. They have brought immeasurable profits and benefits to the 
businesses and individuals that use their software, enhancing their 
productivity by leaps and bounds. If Microsoft was no good at what 
they do, they would not be successful. People would not buy their 
products. The only legal and moral way to end Microsoft's grip on 
the marketplace is to produce something better than Microsoft has.
    In order for humans to survive, they must think. Reason is not 
automatic. Those who choose to think have the chance of survival. 
Survival is not guaranteed, because some will be better at thinking 
than others. The Constitution of the United States, which is based 
on this idea, does not guarantee a businesses survival in the 
marketplace. They are not entitled to x number of customers, or x 
percent market share. They are not guaranteed subsidies from the 
American people or a share of another's ideas.
    Business is based on the law of survival. If you can produce 
something that is good, that people are willing to buy, then you 
will survive. Do not, and you will not. Microsoft embodies this 
principle. They have succeeded. People like, use and want their 
software.
    I think that America is the best place on earth, because it is 
the only one based on true, moral principles.
    The ideas, that one is entitled to something just because it 
exists, that have motivated the attacks on Microsoft is what will 
send us all 

[[Page 25322]]


to hell in a hand basket. These ideas are based on 
Altruism, the foundation of everything that is anti-American. 
America became great because it enforced the rights to life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the guarantee of 
happiness. I hope that these rights will still be defended, and that 
Microsoft will be left to do business as usual, their way.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Randall J. Weytens
    CC: Jessica Wanless, Paul Millard, Randall Weytens



MTC-00010583

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ
    I believe the settlement in m/soft is fair and reasonable. In 
view of the serious issues involved and the time taken to come to 
resolution and because of the lower court judge's impertinent and 
unjudicial remarks which could provoke a new trial and prolong this 
matter even further, this matter is ripe for settlement, and the 
parties should be allowed to settle this long and hard fought 
dispute.
    Please cast my vote to put this matter behind us and move 
forward. We need to conquer a recession-not keep rehashing this old 
news.
    Michael Cole
    Attorney at Law
    Calif Bar #37417



MTC-00010584

From: George McClure
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:45am
Subject: attorney general letter sent



MTC-00010586

From: Bill Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi Mr. Ashcroft,
    Enclosed is an attachment in defense of Microsoft Corporation.
    Thanks,
    William M. Wagner Jr. 13 Osprey Drive
    Berkley, MA 02779-2337 January 12, 2002 Attorney General John 
Ashcroft US Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement that was reached between Microsoft and 
the Justice Department. This agreement will be good for the public 
by allowing Microsoft to focus on more innovation and new software 
development.
    Although I did not agree with the commencement of this suit in 
the first place, I agree with Microsoft that it is time to move 
forward. One is that Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers 
broad new rights' to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs that compete with programs included 
within Windows. This will allow computer makers to replace access to 
various features of Windows with access to non-Microsoft software 
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks.
    As the Director of Technolo9Y for a small business in 
Massachusetts, I understand the importance of Microsoft's products 
for our economy. The company has done much to standardize 
development in this country and improve worker productivity. I trust 
your strong leadership for this settlement will continue. With 
highest regards,
    Robert Paquette
    cc: Representative Barney Frank
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00010587

From: Bob Harler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:08am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT 6959 South Highway 76 Russell Springs, 
KY 42642 January 11, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S. 
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to you in support of Microsoft regarding the 
antitrust settlement. Microsoft did not deserve to be the target of 
antitrust litigation. They reached their point of market dominance 
solely due to the superiority of their product. Other vendors of 
software could not adequately compete with a product line that had 
been so overwhelmingly welcomed by the world's computer users.
    Superior product development is what placed Microsoft at the 
pinnacle of market dominance, not illegal marketing.
    That being said, I do agree with steps being taken to ensure 
illegal marketing does not take place. But punishing Microsoft for 
producing a superior product smacks of allowing their whiny 
competitors to use the U.S. legal system to enhance their own market 
position. That practice should be considered as unfair and illegal 
as the alleged Microsoft practices.
    I appreciate your time in this matter.
    Sincerely, Robert M. Harler



MTC-00010588

From: charles messler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    This protracted litigation is akin to trying to milk a dead cow. 
Clearly, it smacks of an abuse of the legal system by attorneys 
interested more in fees than a just settlement.
    I can see nothing wrong with Microsoft's efforts to integrate 
functions in any of their current Operating System platforms. To say 
that it disadvantages Apple (MAC) is ingenuous. There are MAC people 
and there are PC people. PC people are less likely to be graphics 
oriented, and prefer the control that Windows gives them. The 
integration is a plus. What is to stop MAC from innovating


rather than cry help? Information Technology has a life cycle 
measured in months. Any settlement will be partly out of date before 
it can be approved.
    It still galls me to recall Mr. Klein, Janet Reno and group 
cavorting like children when the now chastised judge made his 
findings of law.
    Thought should be given to the millions of Microsoft 
shareholders that will be affected by the actions of the DOJ. 
Consider retirement assets that have already been decimated, albeit 
not to the extent of Enron.
    Let the individual States fight in the Supreme Court if they are 
not satisfied with an omnibus settlement.
    Thank you,
    Charles L. Messler



MTC-00010589

From: Jared Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:33am
Subject: My Opinion
    To whom it may concern,
    I have followed the microsoft antitrust case with interest. I 
believe that the Departmane of Justice should not settle the case, 
and that the original findings of the case should be adhered to. 
These are, in my opinion, the actions that should be taken:
    Microsoft should be split, all application software should be 
produced and sold by one portion that is split off, all operating 
system software and support should belong to another portion.
    All java language development should be halted by Microsoft. 
This is not to say that they cannot use it, but that they must make 
their browsers and operating systems 100% compliant with the Sun 
Microsystems release. A monetary damages fee should be paid to the 
holders of the Netscape Software company.
    Internet Explorer must be spun off to its own company, 
completely separate from the applications and the operating systems 
producers.
    It is not fair, cor correct, for Microsoft to lose a judgement 
that it is a monopoly, then use the money it has illegally earned 
from that monopoly to buy off the Department of Justice.
    Thank you,
    Jared Davis



MTC-00010590

From: dblubbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement should be accepted and done 
quickly. This court case is one the the things that started the 
downslide of our economy. I have been familiar with the computer 
business since 1981 and am fully aware that certain companies are 
using the government to overcome Microsoft as a competitor.
    Sincerely, Beverly Lubbers




MTC-00010591

From: dblubbers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case immediately. It is a fair 
settlement. Having been in the computer business since 1981, I am 
aware that Microsoft's competitors are using the government to 
attempt to control Microsoft as a competitor. The states do not wish 
to settle because they see dollars to use for their budgets. We have 
used Microsoft products since they started. We are thankful 

[[Page 25323]]

that they have helped establish a standard software that we could all 
safely build our businesses on. Thank you, Microsoft.
    Dick Lubbers



MTC-00010592

From: Karen Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:55am
Subject: Settle the Suit, ASAP, Please Attorney General John 
Ashcroft January 12, 2002 Department of Justice RE: Microsoft Suit 
Pending
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please let the Court know that you support the Bush 
Administration and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. 
Please use all of the power of your office to make the settlement of 
the aforementioned case come to an end by letting the Federal Judge 
know that we, Americans want it to end and stop putting Microsoft 
through all of this scrutiny. Please let the Federal Judge handling 
this case hear from you, representing us, the consumers. Take action 
today, and in support this proposed settlement.
    Thank you for your speedy work in this matter. Thank you for 
your con- tinued integrity that you have displayed in the past and I 
know, will in the future.
    Sincerely yours,
    Karen W. Hunt
    8931 Gaylord # 166
    Houston, Texas 77024-2910
    (713) 464-8153



MTC-00010593

From: Alan Vier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    My view on the Microsoft anti-trust is that they should be free 
to innovate. I also feel that they are not using their ``nopoly'' in 
terms of pricing. The os is very complex and to get an upgrade for 
under $100.00 is a bargin! It would be nice if everybody could use 
their time and profits to better use than to spend it in court!
    I do feel that Microsoft should not leverage their ``monopoly'' 
in terms of dealer preferences or limiting other companies to 
innovate.
    Let us remember that it is Microsoft that tries to allow others 
to write applications for the PC vs Apple and others that limit 
hardware and make it more difficult to write software. It was 
Microsoft that allowed others to innovate other hardware and 
software applications that made to PC so popular.
    Sun and the like should fight their battles in the marketplace 
and not in court. Linix is putting perssure on Microsoft to keep 
prices down and innovate, which is the way it should be.
    In summary,
    Let the bright create and not fight!



MTC-00010594

From: Charles B. Stinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Charles B. Stinson Lighthouse Road 
P.O.Box 62 Prospect Harbor, Maine 04669-0062 Tel 207/963-2677 Email 
ckelp@acadia. net January 14, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft US 
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in support of the current settlement between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice at the federal level. Microsoft has 
produced some of the best products for the computer, which accounts 
for their vast success and status as an industry leader. There have 
been some instances in the past where making a choice in peripheral 
Windows components was overly difficult, which is one of the reasons 
I am in favor of the current settlement. I understand that from this 
time forward Microsoft products will be much more accommodating to 
the use and integration of competitors software peripherals. This is 
definitely a step forward, because I believe above all else the 
consumer should have the right to choose, to mix and match software 
as they see fit.
    Another important reason for ending the antitrust proceedings 
swiftly is the strain, which our economy is currently under. The 
information technology industry is one of the biggest in the United 
States, and the antitrust suit has hurt this industry. Not only 
Microsoft has felt the burden of these proceedings, commercial 
retailers who sell MS products, employees of said retailers, 
Microsoft affiliated companies, stock holders, and the American tax 
payers have all been impacted by the antitrust suit. Given the 
current down turn in our nations economy, now is not the time to be 
wasting our resources in the court room when they could be better 
utilized elsewhere. Therefore I support the antitrust settlement, 
and urge you to do the same.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Stinson



MTC-00010595

From: Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ludwik Kozlowski SR., M.D. 7608 
Geronimo Circle N. Little Rock, AR 72116 January 12, 2002 Microsoft 
Settlement U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers-- 
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ludwik J. Kozlowski SR., M.D.



MTC-00010596

From: Harold Berenson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Harold Berenson 20110 218th Ave NE 
Woodinville, WA 98072-7145 January 12, 2002 Microsoft Settlement 
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harold R. Berenson



MTC-00010597

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/12/02  12:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    My opinion and comments: Microsoft should get off the 
hook??four years is enough?? If another company 
has a better operating system??they should show it and the 
world will buy it instead of XP. My County and my City has computers 
and training in every Library Thanx to Bill Gates. Their Software is 
reasonably priced??litigation is never reasonable in 
cost.??Let???s settle it now??
    Charles Murrell,
    Redding California.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,SLATER455 @aol.com@inetgw,Ce...



MTC-00010598

From: bs--crotteau


[[Page 25324]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get on with it. Make the settlement and let Microsoft get 
back to being a major contributor in the high-tech world. One of the 
few places where the USA still holds competitive advantage.
    Thanks,
    BC



MTC-00010599

From: Alan Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
    Dear Sir or Madam
    The time has come for the scumbags in the Justice Department to 
stop the suit against Microsoft, get off the dole and go to work.
    Alan Hansen
    124 North 155st
    Shoreline Wa.98133
    Have a nice day,
    Al



MTC-00010602

From: Juanema Hinesley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Juanema Hinesley 5733 Hwy 9 E Shirley 
, AR 72153-6033 January 12, 2002 Microsoft Settlement U.S. 
Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Juanema Hinesley



MTC-00010604

From: Samuel Golf
To: Microsoft ATR,MicrosoftComments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...
Date: 1/12/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Case
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    To the minds of many Americans, the results of the Microsoft 
Antitrust case have called into question the integrity of our legal 
system as well as our political process. And to those which have not 
yet noticed, I think historians will take note on behalf of future 
generations.
    In the past few years, Americans have been outraged at 
revelations of Chinese attempts to influence our political process 
through campaign contributions. It is well established in fact that 
Microsoft did give massive campaign contributions to members of 
congress and one erstwhile presidential candidate, namely George W. 
Bush. Additionally, lobbying efforts--either directly or 
indirectly--were made to others in congress as well as the Justice 
Department.
    In light of these facts, it was with horror and dismay that I 
watched the direction and aspiration of the Justice Department's 
antitrust efforts change nearly 180 degrees following the 
presidential election (in stark contrast to previous tradition). The 
dangerous message which is being broadcast here is manifold:
    First, it is possible to commit a serious crime in this country, 
be found guilty of committing that crime, and by manipulating the 
length of the trial beyond the term of a presidential administration 
it is possible to escape the original intentions of your 
prosecutors, effectively nullifying the most detrimental outcomes.
    Second, the concept of ``one man, one vote'' is a joke in this 
country. Here we vote with dollars, and the more dollars you have, 
the more votes you get to make.
    Third, and most disturbing, there is no longer separation of 
powers between the executive and judicial branches of government, as 
the framers of our constitution wisely intended. At other times in 
our history, foreigners committing similar acts have been imprisoned 
for treason. At other times in our history, Americans committing 
similar acts have been tried--and committed--for racketeering.
    Additionally, when people have knowingly submitted false 
evidence in a trial, they have been tried and committed for 
perjury--again, leading to imprisonment. Microsoft was actually 
caught in the act of falsifying videotapes entered into evidence not 
once, not twice, but three times in the course of its antitrust 
trial.
    I cannot recall when such egregious acts been ever been treated 
so lightly in America. Please keep in mind that we are not talking 
about abstract concepts of ``harm to consumers'' or ``diminished 
competition in the computer market''. We are talking about the very 
palpable pain and suffering of literally tens of thousands of hard-
working people losing their jobs, businesses, and


fortunes when Microsoft's illegal acts bankrupted thousands of 
businesses. Most of these businesses did not fail because they were 
making inferior products, nor because they were poorly managed, but 
because of the unlawful acts of an unfair competitor.
    Meanwhile the founders, employees, and investors in Microsoft 
have made literally billions of dollars as a result of these illegal 
actions -which apparently everyone who benefited gets to keep. Where 
is the deterrent to committing the same illegal acts in the future?
    Microsoft has already been found guilty of violating antitrust 
laws. The entire reason the antitrust trial occurred is due to 
Microsoft's violations of a previous consent decree. Now the Justice 
Department proposes to remedy Microsoft's behavior with yet another, 
impotent consent decree. This solution defies logic: When someone is 
found guilty of breaking laws, the punishment amounts to making them 
say ``I'm sorry'' and then promise not to do it again. Of course 
when the same perpetrator commits the exact same crime again (except 
worse) the new, improved punishment amounts to making them saying 
``I'm really, REALLY sorry this time'' and promise not to do it 
again. Ever.
    Except with Microsoft, they haven't even acknowledged that they 
are guilty. Publicly they maintain that they are the ones being 
injured by the ``overzealous'' efforts of the Justice Department 
(which at this point is anything but ``zealous''). Microsoft is 
nowhere near saying ``I'm sorry.'' So with Microsoft's established 
pattern of breaking consent decrees, what assurance do the American 
people have that they will actually adhere to this new one?
    Other arguments diminishing the need for drastic remedies 
similarly defy logic: Some would have us believe that with AOL 
purchasing Netscape, the competitive landscape has changed faster 
than the trial could proceed, so there is no longer any need for 
anything to be done. Perhaps we should apply the same logic in a 
murder trial: once a murderer has completed killing their victim, 
there is no longer any need for punishment, because there is no way 
that the victim could possibly be harmed again. Microsoft 
effectively put Netscape out of business (it would never have been 
possible for AOL to purchase them without a tremendous devaluation 
of their stock); their products are no longer used widely, and they 
have lost all power to compete in the market with Microsoft--not 
because they produced an inferior product, but as a direct result of 
Microsoft's illegal and anticompetitive acts.
    An effective remedy should be one which does not cost the 
American taxpayer the burden of a Saddam Hussein-style inspections 
of Microsoft's internal workings. As with nuclear inspections of 
Iraq, Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness to play a shell 
game with incriminating evidence. No, clearly Microsoft's past 
behavior demands that an intelligent person require permanent 
structural change to the company to pave the way for real 
competition in the computing market, and will furthermore show that 
in America, nobody is above the law--no matter how much money or 
political influence they wield.
    The nature of Microsoft's unfair advantage which they have 
abused in the past comes from the collusion of several essentially 
separate business units, which must be cleaved in the remedy stage 
of this trial in order to have lasting beneficial impact:
1) operating system (OS) software

[[Page 25325]]


2) software development tools
3) productivity applications software
4) Internet client & server software
5) media software (Windows media, et al)
6) hardware
7) thousands of substantial holdings in other companies in disparate 
markets
    Due to the massive size of Microsoft and its demonstrated 
ability to abuse this clout, simply dividing the company into two 
would still produce two rabid 800-pound gorillas, rather than two 
well-behaved chimps willing to play nicely in their respective 
markets. Three or four separate entities--with mechanisms in place 
to prevent continued collusion--are required to restore healthy 
competition to all these markets. Furthermore, Microsoft should be 
required to divest itself of holdings in other companies, which it 
also uses to maintain and extend its monopolies. Additionally, 
restitution should be required, considering the billions of dollars 
in gains that Microsoft and its investors have accrued as a result 
of these illegal practices. There simply must be a deterrence to 
breaking the law, and keeping the profit of billions is not a 
deterrence. Since our entire society has been damaged by Microsoft's 
actions, our entire society should receive restitution--to the tune 
of tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars--in the form of 
infusions to our nation's education system. Contrary to the previous 
proposals in civil suits, Microsoft should have no control--directly 
or indirectly -over the ways in which this money is spent. It could 
be used to offer equal technological access to all in our society, 
as well as explore implementing exciting new possibilities for 
integrated accelerative learning approaches that have been proven 
around the world to work eminently better than our own current 
system.
    I also feel that officials at Microsoft should be prosecuted for 
racketeering and perjury efforts which occurred both during and 
after the antitrust trial. Again, people in our society should be 
treated equally in the eyes of the law, no matter how deep their 
pocket books happen to be. Also, the suggestion of making 
Microsoft's OS source code ``public source'' would simply benefit 
Microsoft, by encouraging wider adoption of the OS, because it would 
essentially be FREE. This would mimic the cycle of damage done to 
Netscape when Microsoft chose to give away Internet Explorer. In the 
``public source'' scenario, Microsoft would also benefit from the 
combined efforts of thousands of programmers attempting to fix the 
many thousands of bugs that are known to exist within its operating 
systems. Microsoft has the particularly slimy business model of 
knowingly releasing software which is profoundly flawed, then 
charging its customers for a re-labeled product which partially 
fixes the bugs found in the previous generation, along with some 
additional new features and new bugs. This has been the business 
model of ``upgradeware'' that Microsoft has employed when convincing 
people to upgrade from Windows 95, to Windows 98, to Windows ME, and 
now Windows XP.
    Recall that separation of powers and the public's faith in the 
integrity of the American political and judicial processes are 
literally what is at stake as the remedies are applied in this 
trial. Please show Microsoft that they are not above the law.
    I offer my sincere appreciation for your time and consideration.
    Samuel Goff



MTC-00010605

From: Mathieu Frenette
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a Java Software Architect who really cares about the 
outcomes of the settlement--especially long term results--for they 
may bring down my entire open-source-multiple-platform-
technological-freedom-world forever. No matter the usefulness of 
Microsoft's products, I just can't imagine a world with *only* that. 
Unfortunately, it seems to be the direction things are going.
    I'm afraid this settlement has a much greater impact than what 
most people are aware of, for it will communicate to Microsoft 
whether or not (and at what degree) the entire world is willing to 
accept a ``technological despotism''.
    Technological lock-in, altogether with their new operating 
systems (ie. WindowsXP) which slowly puts them in the middle of 
litterally everything-- including worldwide E-commerce--will bring 
them even closer to this ``technological despotism''.
    In this respect, I sincerely believe the settlement should serve 
as a warning to Microsoft, clearly stating that the world is not 
letting go of its technological freedom.
    Thank you profoundly for taking the time to review people's 
comments...
    Best regards,
    Mathieu Frenette
    Java Software Architect
    Freeborders Canada
    [email protected]



MTC-00010606

From: Richard Becker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:04pm
Subject: Amazing indeed....
    Dear Sirs:
    As a software engineer, and president of a technology company, I 
am astounded that the government cannot clearly see what Microsoft 
has done over the past several years. They have leveraged their 
monopoly to further strengthen their position, and effectively 
freeze out new, and for the most part better technologies. The most 
amazing part of this whole situation, is that they continue with 
business as usual, and for the most part nothing happens. They 
manage to tie things up in the courts for years, while technology 
keeps moving forward, and their position continues to strengthen. 
Nothing short of a breakup will stop this monopoly, and allow 
technology in this country to move forward. When one looks to Europe 
and Asia,


where Microsoft is not so entrenched, that is where technology is 
thriving. Competition spurs innovation, but monopoly's stifle it.
    With the recent introduction of the X-Box, Windows Multimedia 
format in DVD's, and in refusing to support competing, yet superior 
technologies (ie. Java) their monopolistic position only 
strengthens. As a person that is directly involved in the industry, 
it is so obvious as to the general strategy of Microsoft, it is a 
shame that our learned justices can't see it also.
    Regards,
    Richard J. Becker
    President
    MATRIX Information Systems Inc.



MTC-00010607

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:12pm
Subject: Comment from consumer
    It is obvious to many that the consumer is not the issue We know 
that to buy a car piece by piece is outrageously more expensive and 
would put most car owners out of the market.
    Yet you want Microsoft put in a position where they cannot add 
value to their product to the benefit of the consumer
    The amount of money Microsoft has had to spend in courts and to 
attorneys could have gone a long way in stopping world hunger and 
health issues The consumer would also be way ahead without this 
costly litigation.
    That will benefit only a few competitors of Microsoft
    The justice dept. as usual will end up screwing the consumer
    Dick Wyatt



MTC-00010608

From: Derek Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a very sad day in American history to see the DOJ 
abandoning its role of protecting the American public. It's issues 
such as the gov't's unwillingness to truly do what is right w/ MS 
that leads the public to see the U.S. gov't as corrupt, ineffective 
and protecting corporate interests over the needs of the general 
public.
    The real issue in the MS case is stopping its monopolizing 
practices, which leads to further abuses and encroachments on 
constitutional protections. Corporate monopolies develop and 
function in a fashion not unlike authoritarian regimes, such as 
fascism.
    The proposed settlement really doesn't do anything to accomplish 
this. The proof of this should be readily apparent to well-trained 
attorneys and constitutional experts. One needs only to look at MS's 
most recent behavior to grasp how ineffectual the DOJ has been.
    Windows XP requires the purchaser to acquire an activation code 
from MS upon installation. This code is really an inventory of one's 
computers hardware. MS says it does not gather individually 
identifying information from the computer, but my computer hardware 
is my property, and I have a right to privacy regarding its content 
and use.
    The claim that activation is separate from registration, which 
is essential for access to a variety of necessary services, such as 
the support system. Registration does require submission of 
identifying information, but MS claims it keeps this separate from 
activation.

[[Page 25326]]


    What guarantee do I have that MS will do this? Given their 
behavior in the past, only a naive idiot would accept this. It is 
unimaginable that the DOJ allows this. The founders of our nation 
would be aghast at allowing a government agency to do this, let 
alone a private company.
    Yet, MS is undaunted in its practice because I believe they know 
they can do what they want without any real action from the DOJ, or 
other regulatory body. It bespeaks the kind of arrogance of the 
early monopolists like JP Morgan, Rockfeller and the other early 
20th century industrial tycoons.
    I do not believe that MS paranoia about loosing profits from 
software privacy entitles them to infringe on the civil liberties of 
Americans. Apparently, the DOJ believes this as well because it has 
failed to stop the MS monopoly.
    As if this activation isn't enough, MS is even more intrusive. 
If you change some of the hardware in your computer, such as cpu, 
ram chips, harddrive, firewire cards, Windows XP de-activates 
itself. You are then required to call MS and tell them what you have 
done to your computer!. I added a firewire card to my pc, and had to 
call them. It took two days to get a live person, but we've lived 
with that for many years. When I reached their agent, she said, 
``So, what are we doing today?'' The implication being that they 
were entitled to know what I was doing with my pc. Incredible!
    MS doesn't have a right to know this. They have sold me a copy 
of XP, and it does not include my giving up my rights to privacy.
    The point is that we are forced to put up with this because: We 
have no other viable options when it comes to an OS. They have a 
monopoly. Why doesn't the DOJ grasp this? Does the settlement get at 
this?
    Obviously not because MS continues to do these kinds of things.
    One can also see very clearly where they're heading next. It 
does not take a genius to see that they are going to incorporate MSN 
into the OS, just as they did with Explorer. Then signs are already 
there. To get access to certain services, such as support, you have 
to have MS Passport, which is part of MSN.
    Further you have to take their instant messaging, and you cannot 
even delete it from your system. They have recently bought QWest's 
internet system, which is now MSN. So they now have their own 
internet. The next step is to claim MSN is part of the os, and force 
people to pay for it in order to access the internet. They will do 
this by changing Internet explorer to MSN. The DOJ's settlement with 
MS is an abandonment of the US constitution, and the ideals that it 
embodies.
    The real solution is to take the API and make it public domain, 
or force them out of every other business avenue they have been 
pursuing, MSN, internet service provision, non-os applications, and 
to stop them from abridging privacy.
    It is hard to understand why DOJ cannot find the courage to what 
is so obviously right for the American people, and in their best 
interest, not a corporation's. Big Brother is here alright, but 
Orwell was wrong in thinking it was the federal gov't, it's 
Microsoft.
    Derek Mason
    Smithfield, UT



MTC-00010609

From: ME Conces
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:38pm
Subject: I am opposed to the government curtailing Microsoft's 
innovation in the business world.
    Objections
    I am opposed to the government curtailing Microsoft's innovation 
in the business world. Objectionists regret they can't keep up, so 
they spend our money going to court to prove that in essence
    Microsoft is better qualified than the opponents in moving 
forward with innovation in the computer world. I feel Microsoft 
should be able to place computers in the schools if they can do it. 
Other companies are only objecting because they didn't think of it 
first.
    Mary Eileen Conces
    [email protected]



MTC-00010610

From: W. Roger Gehman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren Gehman
126 Park Avenue
Mount Joy, PA 17552-1524
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has gotten a raw deal as a result of a vendetta 
against it by politicians and lawmakers. Microsoft in no way should 
be broken up and should not be subject to many of the concessions it 
is being forced to make.
    For over a decade now, Microsoft has led the tech world in 
innovation delivering the highest quality and most reliable products 
and services to the market. At times their market dominance 
precluded others from gaining an edge, but that forced competitors 
to raise their performance levels, weeding out companies who were 
not strong.
    Microsoft cannot be punished for exhibiting vision and grit. 
Bill Gates accomplished the American dream and should be able to 
bask in his success, not wallow in political agendas. I urge your 
office to support the settlement for the sake of American public.
    Sincerely,
    Warren Gehman
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative George W. Gekas



MTC-00010611

From: miriamlarson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement


    Dear Sirs, Lets resolve the Microsoft problem and get on to 
bigger and better projects! I'm sure that you and your cronies have 
spent enough time and money on this subject . . .
    Sincerely,
    Miriam Larson
    Bremerton, Wash. 98311



MTC-00010612

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I submit that both the Courts and the Department of Justice have 
a fundamental conflict of interest with respect to the antitrust 
case against Microsoft. How can one possibly judge a company and 
mete out fair justice when one depends upon that same company to do 
one's daily work? I further submit that in the interests of justice, 
Her Honor, her staff, and the DOJ team--at the very least--should 
immediately henceforth and until the conclusion of the case, cease 
and desist from using any Microsoft products for any reason in any 
way related to the case. This includes operating systems, 
applications, servers, even mice and keyboards. This includes all 
aspects of the lives of those involved. Home computers, games and 
game consoles, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum nauseumque. This 
will do two things. It will not only remove the specter of ``what 
will I do if all this disappears'' doubt from the minds of those 
involved, but prove to them personally just how pervasive the 
Microsoft monopoly is... and just how possible it is to break it, if 
only we have the will.
    The proposed settlement, so far as I can tell, has no punishment 
for Microsoft, only prevention of further wrongdoing. I propose the 
following very simple step: A complete, total, ten-year ban on using 
Federal monies for the purchase of any Microsoft products, directly 
or indirectly. Current software would be allowed to remain, but as 
licenses expire or computers need upgrading, they would have to be 
replaced with non-Microsoft products. You cannot both break 
Microsoft's monopoly and pay them to maintain it. This would not 
only remove any Federal conflict of interest completely, but have 
the effect of forcing Microsoft to play fair with non-Microsoft 
systems or be forced from the industry as people make the changes 
necessary to make their own systems talk to non-Microsoft Federal 
systems.
    There are many flaws with the proposed settlement, but I believe 
the addition of this one proviso, removing the conflict of interest 
from the case, will effectively cure all its remaining ills, and 
forever break the monopoly that today is Microsoft.
    Glenn R. Stone
    Linux Systems Engineer
    working in Redmond, WA



MTC-00010613

From: Tanner lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  1:55pm
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today expressing my sincere belief that that no 
further action on behalf of the federal government needs to be 


[[Page 25327]]

taken 
against Microsoft. This issue has held the leading innovator, as 
well as the entire IT industry, is in a state of stagnancy for three 
years now. It is time that the government let them get back to work. 
For this reason, the settlement reached in November should be 
implemented without further delay. It is quite clear that this 
settlement is thorough and reasonable. The government wanted to 
inhibit anti-competitive behavior and that is exactly what this 
agreement does. Microsoft has agreed to allow its competitors access 
in code and interfaces that internal are internal to Window 
operating system products. Additionally, Microsoft has conceded 
broad new rights to computers makers to ship non-Microsoft operating 
systems, as well as the rights allowing them to configure Windows so 
as to promote software applications that compete with Microsoft 
products. There are many other provisions of this settlement, all of 
which will be verified by a Technical Committee for compliance. 
Under these conditions, it is fair to say that Microsoft's 
competitors have a significant advantage, and more importantly, this 
settlement satisfies the original goal of the government's lawsuit.
    This settlement should be implemented immediately so as to allow 
Microsoft to get back to producing innovative products and services. 
This issue has been drawn on far too long, to the detriment of the 
IT industry and the economy. It demands a resolution. Please 
continue your hard work in this direction.
    Sincerely,
    Tanner Lewis



MTC-00010614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This is in response to the Microsoft Settlement. I'm 
disappointed because the settlement will not lead to a competitive 
business environment. It's clear that Microsoft has a monopoly. I 
can't run my business without paying Microsoft. The problem with the 
settlement is that it doesn't address the fact that Microsoft 
already has a monopoly. To rectify this the settlement should 
encourage more competition. The settlement makes a reasonable 
attempt at fixing some obvious problems in how Microsoft interacts 
with other companies and how they can modify or use Microsoft's 
operating system, but there is a lot more to using an operating 
system or writing applications for an operating system then setting 
icons. Microsoft should have to make any changes to the operating 
system available to the entire public long enough ahead of time of 
implementing them that other companies can use the changes in a 
competitive manner with Microsoft's other software products.
    Another approach to ensuring competition would be to encourage a 
competitive operating system for PCs. My biggest complaint with 
Microsoft is that it has little to no competition. The consumer is 
stuck with whatever Microsoft comes up with no matter how many 
errors or worthless features are in it. If the Mac OS ran on PCs 
then Microsoft would be pressured to fix some obvious problems. If 
there were a company with enough capitol to build a simple interface 
for Linux then Microsoft would have real competition. I would like 
to see the settlement structured to have Microsoft pay for the 
development of a competitive product, either Mac OS on a PC or a 
simple Linux interface, then have Microsoft's operating system made 
public.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Rosing



MTC-00010615

From: Frank Koch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Frank Koch
    158 Terning Drive West Eureka, MT 59917 January 12, 2002 
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft 
Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Koch



MTC-00010616

From: Denise Rounds
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Denise Rounds
    PO Box 480097
    Charlotte, NC 28269
    January 12, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division


    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be
    encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Denise Rounds



MTC-00010617

From: James E. Osteen, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:29pm
Subject: Put an end to the Antitrust Case
    Can you please save me and my fellow taxpayers a little money? 
The last thing that we need now is for the DOJ to keep harassing 
Microsoft. In my eyes, Microsoft's competitors are whinning, because 
they cannot build a better product.
    James Osteen



MTC-00010619

From: marina slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Judge KK;
    As a long-time (and very discontented) Micosoft user, I find it 
almost unbearable to think that I will be forced to continue to use 
the MS operating systems-- and (gasp) MS applictions--indefinitely 
into the future if the PFJ is approved as it now stands. Please help 
bring at least a modicum of real competition to our country's PC 
software industry. For all of us millions that use the PC everyday 
to do a variety of tasks, how much nicer it would be to have truly 
free choice in applications--and an Operating System that actually 
worked without crashing. Clearly you can't do a lot about the 
latter. But please do something about the former. Please don't allow 
the 'bolting' provision of the PFJ to stand.
    Sincerely yours.
    Marina Slayton
    Palo Alto, CA



MTC-00010620

From: marina slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    THAnk you Judge--for taking this case seriously. Please do not 
let Microsoft have its way.
    We need a competitive software industry in our country-not a MS 
monopoly.

[[Page 25328]]


    THanks,



MTC-00010621

From: G S
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    GREETINGS JUDGE;
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK IN REVIEWING THE PFJ. AS A 10 YEAR 
VETERAN OF THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, MY READING OF THE PFJ TELLS ME 
THAT IT IS DEFINITIVELY NOT IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST.
    I HOPE YOU WILL SEND THE PFJ BACK TO JUSTICE AND ASK THEM TO 
CORRECT AT LEAST THE MOST EGREGIOUS SECTIONS, IF NOT (PERHAPS BEST) 
START AGAIN.
    AFTER ALL, THREE COURTS HAVE ALL FOUND THAT MICROSOFT DIRECTLY 
AND REPEATEDLY ABUSED ITS MONOPOLY POSITION (95% OF THE EFFECTIVE 
MARKET FOR PC OPERATING SYSTEMS IN THE USA??). WHY SHOULD WE TRUST 
THEM GOING FORWARD???
    THANK YOU.
    GWS



MTC-00010622

From: Barbara Bryant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Bryant
PO Box 1344
Levelland, TX 79336
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    WHY DON'T YOU GO AFTER THE ``UTILITY/TELEPHONE MONOPOLIES IN 
SMALL TOWNS?
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Bryant



MTC-00010623

From: Anders Persson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hej
    Microsoft position on the software market make them a monopoly 
company. They thoroughly use it by adding not large differences to 
standards but small once. Many companies in Sweden has abandon other 
products like Netscape since they do not handle everything correctly 
if a site has been developed by any MS product. Since a lot of 
people use MS Word, MS Front Page in large companies they of course 
produce there sites with those tools. Netscape handles them almost 
correctly but since Microsoft has added some slight differences only 
known internally of Microsoft it is only MS Internet Explorer that 
has the possibility to handle the pages correctly.
    They have tried the same with Java and there product Visual J++ 
that in some cases produced not standard Java code. So, Microsoft is 
defacto, by its large market share, setting the standrad but not 
telling anyone. A similar case is the openoffice.org tool that tries 
to read MS Word formatet documents. I recently filed an issue about 
a bug to oppenoffice.org. They did not handle some tables correctly 
that was produced with a MS Word tool that a friend of mine use. 
They looked at the binary format of the document and the reason was 
that MS Word ignored in this specific case the carriage return that 
was included in the table? Why did they ignore it? How should anyone 
else than the developers at Microsoft be able to write products that 
use information produced by other tools either by direct 
communication or via files produced by Microsoft tools.
    If a small company do like Microsoft noone will bother since it 
often does not affect anybody. But since Microsoft totally dominate 
the market everyone must follow what they do. If Microsoft decide 
that they need a new product in a certain area the just take it 
since they can easily create a new product that is better integrated 
with all other Microsoft tools than any other vendor can do.
    The only possible solution is to devide MS into a lot of smaller 
companies.
    Regards
    Anders Persson



MTC-00010624

From: Don Running
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement



MTC-00010624-0001

805 Harrison Street
Wakefield, MI 49968-1043
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft


US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-000
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    We are huge supporters of Microsoft. We have long been impressed 
by the company's ability to produce user-friendly products. 
Microsoft has their hand on the pulse of the consumer's needs. This 
is the secret behind Microsoft's ability to innovate. We want to 
voice our support for the settlement. This settlement is fair. It is 
reasonable. It contains many terms that will ensure anti-competitive 
behavior in the future. The largest of these terms is the disclosure 
of the internal interface. Competitors will now be able to access 
the design of the Windows system. This will put competitors at an 
increased advantage.
    Microsoft is a great company. It has helped te technology 
industry immensely. The settlement will allow them get back to what 
they do best. Enact the settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincere regards,
    Donald R. and Margaret A. Running



MTC-00010624-0002



MTC-00010625

From: Gayle Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4119 North Simpson Road
Otis Orchards, WA 99027-8721
January 12, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case. I am 
outraged about the amount of money and time that has been devoted 
it. This case should not have been brought in the first place. I am 
even more outraged by the handling of the case by the judiciary. I 
believe firmly that the government should simply drop the case 
against Microsoft, however, as the likelihood of this happening is 
slim, I support Microsoft's agreement to comply with the terms of 
the settlement agreement in the interest of ending this costly, 
wasteful, unwarranted, and needless litigation.
    The terms of the settlement are more, considerably more, than 
fair, just, and reasonable. Microsoft has gone far above and well 
beyond what should be expected of it. Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose to its very competitors the interfaces that are internal to 
its proprietary Windows Operating System. Similarly, Microsoft 
agreed to not enter into contracts with third parties that would 
require that third party to exclusively promote or distribute 
Microsoft products. There should be no hesitation in accepting these 
terms; no hesitation on the part of the Department of Justice; and, 
no hesitation on the part of the Court. A nation that hesitates in 
times of crisis is lost. And our nation is facing a crisis.
    I believe firmly that this case was brought as a result of the 
government's ongoing pattern of interfering with successful American 
businesses. Innovative companies, like Microsoft, should be free to 
further their businesses. When innovative American companies are 
allowed to freely innovate, American businesses, American consumers, 
and the American economy in general, will benefit.
    Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and, 
please, let our nation move forward.

[[Page 25329]]


    Sincerely yours,
    Gayle E. Green
    We do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet 
inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and 
momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far 
outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on 
what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is 
eternal.
    II Cor. 4:16-18



MTC-00010626

From: Mike Duetting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5756 Spruce Knoll Court
Indianapolis, IN 46220
(317) 255-4806
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my full support of the recent antitrust 
settlement between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. The 
case has dragged on long enough and I believe the settlement is fair 
and in the best interests of the America public. There are two 
things I completely agree with in the terms of settlement and think 
will be good for the IT Industry. First, the increased relations 
between Microsoft and computer makers and software developers will 
allow knowledge sharing, which is unprecedented in this industry and 
should promote higher growth rates. Second, designing future Windows 
versions so that computer makers, software developers, and consumers 
can more easily promote non-Microsoft products is a welcome 
adjustment to the current format.
    But, for the IT Industry and economy to rebound this matter has 
to be settled as soon as possible and that will only happen when the 
nine states in opposition drop their lawsuits. I believe they should 
be scolded for their actions and I disagree fully with their 
intents.
    Sincerely,
    Michael S. Duetting



MTC-00010627

From: m C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:11pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    DEAR JUDGE; WHEN REVIEWING THE PFJ, PLEASE THINK OF WHERE OUR 
NATION WOULD BE WITH ONLY ONE OIL COMPANY (STANDARD OIL) OR WITH 
ONLY ONE RAILROAD CORPORATION... MONOPOLIES ARE INHERENTLY BAD FOR 
OUR INDUSTRY, OUR ECONOMY AND OUR NATION. AND I DON'T THINK THAT 
ANYONE LOOKING SERIOUSLY AT THE NUMBERS WOULD ARGUE THAT MS DOESN'T 
AT LEAST HAVE A DEFACTO MONOPOLY IN OUR INDUSTRY.
    AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN MS HAS ABUSED ITS MONOPOLY POSITION TO 
PUT ITS COMPETITORS OUT OF BUSINESS. AND NOW THE GOV'T WANTS TO 
TRUST MS NOT TO DO IT AGAIN (WHICH IS HOW I READ THE PFJ).
    THAT IS RIDICULOUS...AND IT WILL BE A SERIOUS BLOW TO THE 
AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY.
    PLEASE TAKE A COURAGEOUS STAND FOR FREE MARKETS. PLEASE STAND 
AGAINST THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY.
    THANK YOU.
    MARIAN CHILDS
    TOLEDO, OHIO



MTC-00010628

From: Stephane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The american DOJ is the only authority that can do anything 
against the unfair market strategy of Microsoft corporation. And it 
may do so because, for its own interests, breaking such a monopoly 
would benefit the USA's state.
    1-Microsoft's monopoly keeps the new economy fragile and weak. 
What would happen in case of Ms' crash ? The main industrial network 
in IT would be thrown to ground. Do you think people would like not 
to upgrade windows computers during 10 years because MS is dead ? Do 
you remember that anti trust laws were established after 1929 and 
why ?
    2-This monopoly costs to the us society. The illegal and 
nonsense raises in software (that became necessary for most users 
and enterprises) involves a real robery of the american society. The 
states are stolen, as their people are, when they spend million 
dollars just because the have to buy an up-to-date system (even if 
up-to-date just means more beautifull and newly marketed).
    3-From a computer security point of vue, having only one large 
scaled operating system (that can't be customized or modified in any 
way) is the MAIN factor that explains why viruses and security holes 
spread so quickly in the net. More diversity would carry more immune 
to the net and the american economy as well.
    4-No more innovation, what a pity for such a new field : 
creating Operating Systems for people.... Microsoft is simply 
leveling down the computer science as many will tell you. Even their 
``innovations'' are not innovations because they are not shared and 
this just becomes a market advantage to strengthen Ms and weaken the 
technology abitiliy to change and evolve. American founder thought 
it would not become another oligarchy ...
    What an amazing idea to see that justice is feared to break 
someone who concentrates so much power in a democraty...



MTC-00010629

From: ELHoffmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,


950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Since technology changes and evolves so quickly these days, it 
is impossible that a monopoly can exist.
    Every company has an equal opportunity to achieve success and 
Microsoft should not be punished for accomplishing the highest level 
of success. Over the past ten years, growth of Microsoft has fueled 
the
    US economy. As a result of litigating Microsoft, this source of 
``fuel'' has been cut short. Thus it is important to end litigation 
as soon as possible.
    The settlement offers the best solutions to the problem and 
serves the best interest of the people. We should not continue to 
weaken our US companies and while risking the chance of another 
foreign entity take advantage of the software market. There are 
already several non US companies developing products that will 
provide very strong competition for Microsoft. Microsoft should be 
left alone so that they can continue to develop new cost effective 
products and stay ahead of these foreign competitors. I am very 
concerned about the large legal bills being forced on Microsoft to 
defend themselves against this unwarranted litigation. In past years 
many other US companies had an equal opportunity to develop 
competitive software but have not been successful simply because 
what Microsoft has provided has been better and cheaper. I know 
because I have used much of that software and am very familiar with 
the cost and functionality.
    After more than three years of litigation, it is about time that 
a settlement was reached. The current agreement ensures that other 
US competitors have an opportunity to be promoted the same amount as 
Microsoft. Provided in future Windows programs will be a mechanism 
that enables all users to easily reconfigure Windows to endorse 
software programs that are competitive with Microsoft products. In 
doing this, Microsoft consented to document and disclose necessary 
interfaces to the competition in order to advocate software 
compatibility. In addition, Microsoft has agreed to the 
establishment of a Technical committee. These software engineer 
experts will monitor Microsoft's business practices and will report 
any violations of the settlement.
    Due to the excessive length of this case, it is necessary to end 
litigation immediately as it is not beneficial to the parties 
involved or to the US citizens. I believe the justice department has 
many more important items on its agenda. This country can not afford 
additional terrorism so that is where the justice department should 
be putting these resources (to better use in protect the people of 
the United States).
    Thank you considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Leon Hoffmann



MTC-00010630

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ should allow Microsoft to press on in competitive ways 
and to innovate. Surely some compromise can be reached. If not 
computers and software for schools, how about software for 
government entities?
    Shelley S. Gordon, Ph.D.
    2444 West Oak St. #228
    Denton TX 76201
    [email protected]


[[Page 25330]]




MTC-00010631

From: tjsimon124
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Department of Justice:
    It is high time that this case be closed and allow Microsoft to 
continue their innovative proccess's in developing new, improved, 
and affordable software programs that benefits individual consumers, 
the software industry, and the American Economy. Please stop 
spending taxpayers dollars on this case and devote your efforts to 
other more important matters that affect all Americans.
    If the few special interests individuals would spend the 
resources in improving their software products instead of 
litigation, maybe they too could improve the efficiency of their 
products.
    THOMAS J. SIMON
    Concerned consumer



MTC-00010632

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is just unbelievable that a company such as Microsoft is 
penalized for being successful. Enough already! I have yet to find 
ANYONE who has been ``hurt'' by what ever Microsoft has been accused 
of. The real villain in this circus are the competitors of Microsoft 
who just cannot compete or will not compete without government 
intervention. If you cannot compete in a certain market, then you 
probably are IN the wrong market. This is what a true ``open 
market'' is. Microsoft is being penalized for following the American 
Way. A successful company that has indeed improved my way of life 
and millions of others. Let's face it. The states that are involved 
are only looking for another ``cash cow'' to fill their coffers. To 
drain Microsoft of legally earned revenue, an amount that Microsoft 
will have to pay, but like any other prudent company, would pass the 
cost back to the consumer by raising the price of its product, thus 
basically becoming a ``hidden tax'' upon the American people.
    The Department of Justice must end this trampling on the spirit 
of what is America, an open market, the freedom of commerce, the 
right to be successful without penalty.
    Lou G. Kush
    27810 49th Ave S
    Auburn WA 98001-1913
    United States of America
    (253) 859-3004
    e:mail: [email protected]



MTC-00010633

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I should like to record my view that the Microsoft settlement 
recently agreed upon is fair and reasonable, and in the public 
interest, and it would be very much against the public interest to 
reopen the case at this time, after already protracted litigation.
    Very truly yours,
    William J. Williams



MTC-00010634

From: Richard Iverson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
8468 W McRae Way
Peoria, Arizona 85382
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The federal government has no place telling people how to run 
their business or punishing them for being successful when they do 
it right. Microsoft is being punished for simply being too 
successful. I hope that this settlement means that both Microsoft 
and the government can move onto more important issues.
    This settlement will make it easier for companies to design 
their products for use in Windows by requiring Microsoft to give 
them information about how Windows operates internally. If they 
don't feel that Microsoft is complying, they are allowed to take 
them back to court. I feel that this is more than enough to handle 
all of the original complaints that were brought against Microsoft 
in the first place.
    Please let this settlement stand and let this whole mess finally 
be over and done with. Thank you for hearing me out in this matter 
and I look forward to hearing the result of this case after the 
comment period has ended.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Iverson



MTC-00010635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is intended to express my concern regarding the 
continued delay in the settlement of the Microsoft case. This matter 
has been the object of years of litigation, constant controversy and 
continuous delay. All the while, one of the nation's most dynamic 
corporations has been hamstrung in a manner detrimental to the whole 
IT industry and our national economy. It's time to end this 
controversy and get Microsoft back to work.
    The proposed settlement will satisfy the concerns of the 
government and remedy the grievances of Microsoft's competitors. The 
company will be constrained to open up its Windows systems to non-
Microsoft software


and computer manufacturers. There will be a Washington appointed 
oversight committee to monitor the company's compliance. In short 
the fears of Microsoft's competitors are no longer justified.
    This case is now no more than a political football, and treating 
it as such is detrimental to this country and our economy. Please 
finalize this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond C. Kirby
    9411 Brookview Drive
    Brentwood, TN 37027



MTC-00010636

From: Julia Stemper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Julia Stemper
1830 E. Parks Hwy. #639
Wasilla, AK 99654
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Julia Stemper



MTC-00010637

1437 Darthmouth Street
Scranton, PA 18504-2122
(570)342-0590
January 8,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy to see that a settlement has occurred between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice in the antitrust case, 
but extremely upset with the nine states continuing their lawsuits. 
Microsoft should not be broken up and most of the concessions they 
are being forced to make are ridiculous. I am currently studying for 
a degree in Business Information and have worked in numerous 
internships in the IT sector. As a student, and constituent of IT 
businesses, I think Microsoft is being wrongly forced to disclose 
their technology that they have


[[Page 25331]]

worked long and hard to develop. I 
will say that Microsoft has done wonders for our technology 
educational systems and should be applauded for how they have helped 
our economy.
    The terms of the settlement have some just points such as 
forming three-person team to monitor compliance with settlement and 
increasing relations with competitors to share technological codes 
and interfaces.
    I hope that the Department of Justice helps to suppress state 
opposition and works to free up Microsoft so that they can focus on 
regaining the growth they had over 3 years ago.
cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Senator Arlen Spector
    Sincerely,
Mark Gowarty
From: Mark Gowarty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached are my feelings on the Microsoft Settlement. Please see 
that they are read and reflected upon.
    Thank You
    Mark Gowarty
    CC:Microsoft Freedom to Innovate



MTC-00010638

From: Don (038) Susie Meador
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
MabelDonald A. Meador
20482 Townline Rd.
Lanark, Ilinois 61046
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to comment on the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice that was reached late last 
year. The settlement is definitely in the public's interest and is a 
fair deal for both sides of the dispute. From every indication I 
have seen, the agreement is strong and requires many changes to be 
implemented by Microsoft.
    As an example, Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of 
Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, 
consumers and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. This will in turn give consumers the freedom to 
choose to change their computer's configuration at any time. Also, 
Microsoft will be monitored under the agreement by a Technical 
Committee to ensure they are meeting their obligations.
    I believe Microsoft has done a world of good for this country. 
Their products are extremely important to this country, whether 
small businesses or individuals in their home use them. I hope you 
continue to support the settlement and take no further action.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Meador



MTC-00010639

From: fstapel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs;
    You may add my name to the list of people who are dissatisfied 
with the proposed settlement suggested by the Microsoft Corporation. 
I believe that giving poor school districts refurbished PCs and 
software, will only end up adding to the monopoly that they now 
enjoy. It will also impoverish the already under funded schools, in 
maintenance of these reworked machines plus the continual cost of 
updating them, and upgrading the software. It seems a very clever 
ploy to get more schools locked in to the ``Microsoft Way'', which 
has already proven to be expensive to businesses and the private 
sector alike. I believe Microsoft needs to forfeit a stiff fine, and 
have this granted to these schools, with the choice of Operating 
Systems, Windows, Macintosh, Linux or whatever.
    Thank you for taking time to read this.
    sincerely.
    Frank Stapel
    106 Develin Drive,
    Phoenixville, PA 19460
    [email protected]



MTC-00010640

From: Otto Ammer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:28pm
Subject: antitrust
    bravo microsoft!!!!!!!!!!!!Why doesn't the gov. keep its nose 
where it belongs.
    Not in pvt industry.
    O.J. AMMER
    300s. stonebase rd.
    New Wilmnigton Pa. 16142



MTC-00010641

From: Steve Skipper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:30pm
Subject: Settlement agreement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a resident of Washington I am amused at the different states' 
AG's as they attack Microsoft. Even though our AG was a lead 
litigator in the tobacco suit(we grow no tobacco in WA), I notice 
our AG is not part of this action, but many of the other AG's have 
competitors to Microsoft headquartered in their states. This appears 
to be a legal shakedown, because many of them were happy if 
Microsoft dumped money into their state in exchange for settling. 
(If it were truly an anti-trust case, none of these pursuers would 
let Microsoft buy them off.) Is this the American way? I hope not.
    I would like to mention just one little piece of testimony in 
the government's case against Microsoft. Ralph Nader in his 
testimony mentioned that they were so upset with Microsoft's 
business tactics that they did not use any Microsoft products in 
their office. I think that says it all. Microsoft is not the only 
game in town.
    I would also like to refer back to another case not so long ago, 
very similar to this one.


Remember when the government claimed that no one would ever be able 
to compete against IBM, because they controlled so much of the 
market. A suit that lasted some 13 years was for naught. IBM is even 
throwing in the towel on trying to compete in the desktop business 
and it had nothing to do with the government making a level playing 
field. What was the purpose of the suit? Are we going to make the 
same mistakes with Microsoft?
    The free enterprise system is not perfect, but I think if we 
look at history, it turns out to be the most efficient and gives 
competitors the best opportunity to become the new industry giant.
    If Microsoft is willing to settle under the terms now proposed, 
let's do it.
    Steve Skipper,
    Not affiliated with, own no interest in, not an advocate for or 
not paid by Microsoft



MTC-00010642

From: Tammy Stambaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ascroft,
    I'm writing to ask you to accept the proposed settlement by the 
Department of Justice, Microsoft and nine of eighteen states which 
will stop wasting taxpayer's money on the decade-long competitor-
driven persecution of Microsoft.
    I ask that the Federal District Court determine that the 
proposed settlement is in the public's interest and end the waste of 
our money on this case. Please settle it, and be done with it.
    Thank you,
    Tammy Stambaugh



MTC-00010643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 

[[Page 25332]]

1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Janell Hope
    11805 Meridian Pl. NE
    Lake Stevens, Wa. 98258
    [email protected]



MTC-00010644

From: Pete Carapetyan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your honor:
    Please do not allow our country to be bush-wacked by Microsoft, 
who uses not one but every available tactic to maintain their 
control over the marketplace.
    By making technology appear much more complex than it really is, 
and then using that as a shell game to outwit the court system, 
Microsoft makes a sham out of our laws, and a mockery of what has 
allowed technology to move forward.
    Please do not allow the court to be duped by this very clever 
group. You do not have to be a technical genius to see when you are 
being snookered.
    Pete Carapetyan
    http://datafundamentals.com
    Java Development Services
    Open standards technology for commercial profitability



MTC-00010645

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  4:40pm
    Subject' Attached word file
Steve Marsel Studio, Inc.
215 First Street
Cambridge, MA.
02142
[email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three long years of litigation between Microsoft and the 
Justice Department, I was excited to hear that a settlement had been 
reached.
    The agreement reached required extensive negotiations and is 
extremely comprehensive. The agreement requires many concessions 
from Microsoft that show the government got strong deal in this 
matter. For example, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any 
agreement obligating any third party to distribute or promote any 
Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject to 
certain narrow exceptions where no competitive concern is present. 
Also, any violations of the settlement could bring a contempt of 
court charge against Microsoft. The settlement is also a good 
development for consumers. Besides benefiting the economy, Microsoft 
will now be able to focus their resources on developing the next 
generation of products consumers have come to expect. Therefore, I 
hope your support of the settlement remains strong and this entire 
affair can be put behind everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Marsel



MTC-00010646

From: Charlene Higgins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlene Higgins
504 N. Cottage
Miles City, MT 59301
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charlene Higgins



MTC-00010647

From: alvin j pohl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:07pm
Subject: MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
12380 Drayton Drive
Spring Hill, FL 34609-4034
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 10, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that there has been a settlement 
reached in the Justice Department's case against Microsoft. I would 
you like to know that I support the settlement, which has been 
reached by the parties involved.
    However, I believe that the case was a waste of the court's time 
to begin with. There was no need to bring legal action against 
Microsoft, because they did not commit any crime. They are just a 
successful company who develop excellent products. I think the terms 
of the settlement are more than fair and reasonable for the 
government to accept. For instance, Microsoft has agreed to license 
its Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer 
makers on identical terms and conditions, including price.
    Also, I would like to remind you that there will be a three 
person technical committee established to make sure Microsoft is 
complying with the settlement, and to aid in the dispute resolution 
process. Furthermore, the continued pursuit of legal action against 
them would just be a waste of time and money. I ask that the Justice 
Department terminate its efforts to prosecute Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Alvin Pohl



MTC-00010648

From: Gerald Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:13pm


[[Page 25333]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    I belive that a favorable Microsoft settlement is in the 
interest of consumers and the public in general. Microsoft products 
have continually improved and have provided inexpensive software to 
the average family at a reasonable cost. I would have bought from 
their competitors if their product was as good.
    Gerald G. Thomas



MTC-00010649

From: Don Kovacs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:18pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
    ATTN: Renata B.Hesse
    BOGUS
    The DOJ, Microsoft and nine (9) attorneys-general have reached a 
satisfactory conclusion in this case against Microsoft. This case 
should be concluded as over and those states that do not wish to 
partake in the settlement should get NOTHING, including Connecticut, 
which I am a resident of ( my attorney-general Blumenthal has a 
tendency to grandstand). Enough already. Microsoft makes a product 
and generates jobs, pays taxes and provides social responsibility to 
schools, etc. Government, takes from citizens and is supported by my 
taxes. End this case NOW!!!
    Respectfully
    Don Kovacs
    16 Elaine St.
    Norwalk, CT 06850
    (203) 866-9671



MTC-00010650

From: Muneer Qaid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    First let me start with this funny thing...i'm writing to you 
this email using Microsoft techonology(Hotmail) itselt but opposing 
Microsoft' way in business.
    Yes, i think Microsoft should give some space for other 
companies to work and make money. Apparantly that was not the goal 
of Microsoft in the past years. I do encourage Microsoft innovation 
and hard work but it SHOULD NOT target its work at harming/
destorying or taking ideas of others and plug them into MS Operating 
Systems.
    I think Bill Gates had made enough money to keep him and all his 
grandsons extremely rich for sooooo long. Give it a break Bill 
Gates.
    Regards,
    Muneer



MTC-00010651

From: Kay Lidington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I live in the UK. Many people are concerned over abuse of a 
dominant position by Microsoft. The media is full of stories of 
abuse of a dominant market position by the firm. It probably needs 
to be reined in, but break-up of the entereprise is in the interests 
of no-one. Whether or not you like the firm, they have single-
handedly advanced information technology to levels that even a 
couple of years ago were beyond the wildest dreams of most people 
across the world.
    If you wish to rein them in, many people will consider this 
appropriate. If you wish to break them up, you will do more damage 
to the civilised world than Osama bin Laden could even imagine.
    As a patriotic UK national, I wish a UK firm had the expertise 
that Microsoft consistently show. As a member of the civilised 
`Western' community, I expect you to consider where we would be 
without this firm.
    For the record, I use an outdated version of ``Windows'' 
(Windows '95)because newer versions would leave smaller business 
like mine, that rely on older Windows-dependent programs, unable to 
run these `old' programs without spending money we do not have.
    I have no love for Microsoft, but be realistic--it is the only 
firm able to advance computer applications at a pace required by 
businesses worldwide.
    K Lidington,
    MILT, MInstTA (UK)



MTC-00010652

From: George Salisbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  5:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I find the persecution of Microsoft an abomination of free 
enterprise. Microsofts bundling of their products is a procedure 
that has been followed by many manufacturers since day one. But the 
idea that a man like Bill Gates can utilize the system and become 
the richest man in the world causes our current socialist government 
fits. This is totally un-American. You are supposed to be free to be 
all you can be in this country. Apparently, not!
    Totally disgusted,
    George Salisbury
    6018 E. Gillette Rd.
    Cicero, NY 13039



MTC-00010653

From: Stella Canfield
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stella Canfield
111 E.Evans Rd.
Wapato, Wa 98951
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the


courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Stella Canfield



MTC-00010654

From: Glenda R. Snodgrass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:06pm
Subject: Proposed settlement of Microsoft anti-trust case should be 
REJECTED
    With regard to the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-
trust case, may I respectfully state that I believe the proposed 
settlement should not be approved. Primary faults with this proposed 
settlement include:
    1--No punishment. In spite of the fact that Microsoft has been 
judged to be a monopoly, which is a violation of U.S. anti-trust 
law, the proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft in any 
meaningful way, nor does it grant any meaningful relief either to 
consumers or to companies such as Apple, Sun and Netscape which were 
found to have suffered due to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. 
Microsoft will continue to enjoy the many fruits of its prior 
illegal activities.
    2--No relief. The proposed settlement will not require Microsoft 
to change its normal way of doing business in any meaningful way. 
Consumers will still be forced to buy Microsoft software, at least 
the operating system, with every new PC purchase. (If you don't 
believe this is true, pick up the telephone right now and call 
Compaq or IBM and try to order a new PC with no operating system 
installed. They will not sell you one.)
    3--No disclosure. A fair settlement must require Microsoft to 
reveal the secrets of its file formats to the extent that third-
party software companies may create competitive products able to 
read documents created by Microsoft software and which will interact 
with Microsoft operating systems as well as Microsoft's own products 
do. The existence of the Microsoft monopoly over recent years has 
resulted in the creation of millions of documents in Microsoft-
specific file formats; until these documents can be properly used by 
other software products, the monopoly will not be broken. The 
current proposed settlement does not provide for such necessary 
disclosure.
    4--No protection. Likewise, the proposed settlement does not 
provide for adequate disclosure of network protocols like .NET, 
which Microsoft plans to use to completely dominate the Internet. 
Until and unless these protocols are regulated by an independent 
third party and fully disclosed, only software developers using 
Microsoft development 


[[Page 25334]]

tools on Microsoft platforms will be able to 
fully implement the technology.
    5--No security. It is crucial for national security interests 
that the Microsoft monopoly be halted, firmly, in its tracks. Just 
as a gene pool must be diverse to survive, the communication 
infrastructure of this country must have a diverse base to withstand 
attacks. It is a well-known fact in technical circles that the 
Microsoft operating systems have myriad serious security holes, 
making its ubiquity an even greater liability. More secure systems 
cannot penetrate the market, to diversify the national 
infrastructure and provide security through complexity, until the 
Microsoft monopoly has been broken.
    The proposed settlement will not break the stranglehold of the 
Microsoft monopoly, and thus should be rejected.
    Glenda R. Snodgrass
    Post Office Box 885
    Mobile, Alabama 36601



MTC-00010655

From: Philip Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:11pm
Subject: Mircosoft
    As a taxpaying citizen I'm demanding that the crusade against 
Mircosoft stop. Trial layers make loads of money in these cases. 
However, it sets a bad legal predent and is paid with by taxes.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Haddad



MTC-00010656

From: Peter Menchini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consultant who works in the technology field, I am strongly 
opposed to the way the government has been handling this case of 
late. Microsoft, as a matter of course, uses it's monopoly position 
to carry out the most outrageous anticompetitive practices.
    Indeed, they are the very picture of arrogance. They stifle 
innovation at every turn, even as they take credit for other 
peoples' initiatives. Their complete lack of concern for software 
security for instance, has cost companies thousands of dollars in 
lost revenue.
    I urge the Department of Justice to stop helping Microsoft 
achieve dominance in school systems, and instead deliver the most 
severe punishments allowed by law.
    While I prefer a break up of Microsoft, I understand this may 
not now be possible. In any case, I would think the government would 
look at how much money Microsoft really has, and ask for both 
compensatory and punitive damages based on the billions they've cost 
not only consumers, but State, Federal and local governments as 
well. This should be calculated to include the loss of jobs at 
other, competing firms as Microsoft's threats have forced 
corporations to dump other viable technologies or suffer the wrath 
of Redmond.
    These things are all well documented, and Microsoft has made it 
clear that they are both unrepentant and unbowed. Even today, they 
continue their efforts to dominate at all costs, even if it means 
that America falls behind in cutting edge technology.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Menchini
    Citizen of the United States of America



MTC-00010657

From: Millie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  6:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    My opinion and comments: Microsoft should get off the hook? four 
years is enough? If another company has a better operating system? 
they should show it and the world will buy it instead of XP. My 
County and my City has computers and training in every Library Thanx 
to Bill Gates. Their Software is reasonably priced? litigation is 
never reasonable in cost. Let's settle it now?
    Charles Murrell,
    Redding California.
    My brother, Charles Murrell, wrote the above; we are in 
agreement with his opinion and want you to know.
    George A. & Millie L. Berlemeier
    14 Bruno Ct.
    El Sobrante, CA 94803-3238
    (510) 223-3694



MTC-00010658

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to have the Microsoft case settled. I do not think 
we are gaining anything by prolonging and dragging it out.



MTC-00010659

From: west goewey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  7:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    get it over with . . . tired of my tax dollars being wasted on 
this law suit. lets get the economy rolling . . . the only ones that 
win in a law suit are the lawyers!! let the buyer worry about what 
operating system to buy!! the settlement looks good to this 
consumer.
    west goewey



MTC-00010660

From: Pat and Bob Goodpaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  7:39pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft settlement
From: Pat and Bob Goodpaster
To: mailto:Renata B. Hesse @[email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft's generous offer should be accepted.Enough is enough. 
Let's get this closed and let this progressive organization help 
move our great country forward.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Goodpaster
    1648 Elliott Ave.
    Ashland, Kentucky




MTC-00010661

From: RickWRoberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft continues to develop business strategies which have a 
direct effect on the consumer and developer communities. One of the 
objectives of these strategies is always to impede other companies 
from developing technologies which might interfere with Microsoft's 
goals. Examples: Netscape Navigator and Java Technology. Even after 
the Antitrust suit was filed, Microsoft continues to try make it 
harder for other companies to develop their technologies. Example: 
Microsoft .Net strategy. And Microsoft says look at all the great 
things we have accomplished. But, much more could have been 
accomplished if Microsoft wasn't always trying to inhibit other 
companies abilities to compete in a fair market. I will only support 
a settlement which does not allow Microsoft to continue to bend the 
laws to suit there strategies.
    Rick W. Roberts
    Independent Software Developer



MTC-00010662

From: Kevin Poulsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It has come to my attention, through BeOS channels, that you are 
accepting proposed remedies to Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior 
as a monopoly.
    To the point:
    1. Microsoft should be limited from placing ANY restrictions on 
resellers. This includes, but is not limited to resellers selling 
individual copies of software, major/minor computer manufacturers 
who bundle MS software with their systems, VARs who may give 
discounts for bulk orders on MS products, etc.
    2. Microsoft should be required to publish a price list with all 
available discounts. Anyone who meets requirements for fair 
discounts (based on volume, etc.) can get the discounts without any 
strings attached. Also, end-users should be allowed to upgrade 
whenever they see fit, instead of being forced into ``subscription 
services''.
    3. Microsoft NEEDS to be broken into at least 3, preferabley 4, 
independant companies (Mini Micros) using the AT&T breakup as a 
model. I strongly think we need 2 operating system companies and 2 
application companies. Tied to this, COMPLETE OS APIs need to be 
published to any application/OS manufacturer that requests them.
    4. Monetary damages at a staggeringly high number--sufficient to 
be considered by Microsoft as incentive for avoiding anti-
competitive practice in the future. These monies could be placed in 
a trust fund for a number of years. Anyone who can prove damages, 
can be paid from this trust fund.
    Now, my thoughts on each item:
    1. There have been numerous operating systems that could have 
fared well if it wasn't for Microsoft's heavy hand behind the scenes 
of computer manufacturers. Examples include OS/2, Dr DOS, many DOS 
variants, Linux, Unix, and, most recently, the BeOS. I remember when 
OS/2 came out. I was a student at the time and I saw the two OSs 
side-by-side in the University computer 


[[Page 25335]]

store. OS/2 looked 
impressive, but it faded away quickly. I wonder why? I have had a 
strong interest in the BeOS for about 5 years. I heard that the BeOS 
was shipping as a dual-boot on some HP computers. I later found out 
that the computers did ship with the BeOS installed, but that 
Microsoft prevented HP from adding the BeOS to their boot manager 
and would not let them use a third-party boot manager. This severely 
effected the commercial viability of the BeOS. Computer 
manufacturers and software distributors should be able to compete on 
a level playing ground. Microsoft has no place dictating unfair 
distributor restrictions.
    2. Microsoft has frequently played favorites and punished 
distributors who don't agree to Microsoft's whims (selling OS/2, 
selling linux, etc). Microsoft should not be allowed to ``punish'' 
ANY software distributors. There are valid reasons for giving 
discounts.. specifically volume. Changing the wholesale price on 
Microsoft products for ``preferred'' or ``black-listed'' vendors is 
unfair practice. In addition, Microsoft recently initiated a 
``subscription'' policy. Instead of allowing end-users to upgrade 
when they feel it is appropriate (e.g., when Microsoft provides a 
decent upgrade product), Microsoft now requires that companies use a 
``subscription service'' for upgrades. This is a clear coercion that 
would be unnecessary if Microsoft provided a product that was worth 
the upgrade. End users should be able to indicate approval by 
upgrading whenever they want.
    3. BeWINE is an effort to allow Windows applications to run on 
the BeOS. WINE also allows Windows applications to run on Linux and 
X. ( http:// bewine.loungenet.org/ and http://www.winehq.com/ ) I 
would like to see this project succeed, as well as others like it. 
But, they need ALL of the OS APIs. Breaking Microsoft into 2 
companies, one with the OS and the other with applications, simply 
will NOT provide the open information that is needed. I think it is 
more important to break Microsoft into 2 OS companies. This is the 
ONLY way that all the OS APIs will be made public.
    4. Microsoft has inflicted amazing monetary damage on 
competitors as well as on it's customers. If a company (Microsoft) 
produces a quality product at a fair price, then I don't mind if 
they make a healthy profit. Microsoft not only has NOT provided a 
quality product, they know that they can charge outrageous prices as 
long as they have control. Microsoft's value will undoubtably 
increase if it is broken up (just look at AT&T and the baby bells). 
Microsoft's effort to avoid a breakup is clearly so that they can 
maintain control. Microsoft has to be fined punitive damages 
relative to it's size. This is the only way to give them a 
sufficient incentive to compete fairly.
    Some additional commentary:
    First, my background. I was a network administrator for 5 years 
working primarily with Windows NT 4.0. Mind you, I wouldn't mind 
working with Microsoft products if they actually worked the way they 
should and were priced according to what they are worth.
    Windows has traditionally been a very unstable and low 
performance OS. Microsoft puts effort into ``features'' that will 
get customers. But they routinely include ``bugs'' that are 
``fixed'' in the next version to entice upgrades. Once blatant 
example is USB support for Windows NT 4.0. This is not difficult to 
provide. In fact, I've heard of 3 third-party programmers who had 
plans to offer it, since Microsoft hasn't included it in any of 
their 7 service packs. Coincidentally, none of those companies have 
brought it to market. I know (but can't prove) that Microsoft killed 
any efforts to offer USB support for Windows NT 4.0 so that users 
would have to upgrade to Windows 2000.
    I've seen many confusing pricing schemes that are designed 
specifically to drain money from customers. Sometimes, these schemes 
include charges for no product. In particular, they charge a fee for 
every computer that accesses a server. They have started a 
``subscription service'' that is effectively the only way to get 
product upgrades without spending a fortune on ``new product'' 
prices for upgrades. We also know that Microsoft charged twice the 
profitable price for Windows 95.
    I became aware of the BeOS about 5 years ago. I watched in 
anticipation as newer versions came out and as it got great reviews. 
Finally, with version 4, I thought it was good enough to give it a 
try. It worked great (and still works great) on my P200. I've since 
upgraded to 5.0 and I am writing this e-mail using Mail-It on the 
BeOS. I still use Mail-It for my everyday personal e-mail. There are 
several sample programs that ship with the BeOS. I eagerly opened 11 
of them, including a flight simulator, a Mandelbrot set generator, a 
spinning Open-GL teapot, a couple of videos, games and a starfield 
simulation. With all eleven of these applications open and running, 
some of them slowed slightly, but the equivalent of the Windows 
Start menu didn't even hesitate when I clicked on it. I bought stock 
in Be Inc. about the time that it was fluctuating wildly. This was 
poised to be a great OS. It was almost purchased by Apple. Then, as 
I later learned, HP (I think) delivered several computers with the 
BeOS installed. They were supposed to be dual-boot, but Microsoft 
nixed the dual boot, essentially making the BeOS inaccessible. That, 
among other things, killed the BeOS. The BeOS was then sold to Palm 
for 11 million--a mere fraction of it's asking price for Apple. I am 
hoping that Palm will license to Be United so that we can revive 
this great OS.
    (Please note that my e-mail address will be changing from 
[email protected] to [email protected] in the near future, in case 
you want to contact me.)



MTC-00010663

From: Dean Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Johnson
2411 Skyline Way #106
Anacortes, wa 98221
January 12, 2002


Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Johnson



MTC-00010664

From: Joyce A. Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12332 Ridge Cove Circle
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have become increasingly concerned by the outcome of the 
antitrust suit brought against Microsoft by the U.S. Department of 
Justice. Even though I feel that Microsoft should never have been 
brought to trial, I am satisfied with the terms agreed to in the 
settlement that was reached. I support the terms of the agreement, 
which include increased information sharing and non-retaliation 
clauses.
    Unfortunately, nine other states, along with Microsoft's 
competitors are seeking to overthrow the decision before it becomes 
permanent and to impose even further regulations of the company than 
it has already submitted to. This is ridiculous. The Department of 
Justice has better things to do with its time and money than to 
haggle endlessly over already resolved issues. It is in the best 
interests of the Justice Department, and indeed the American people, 
to let the lawsuit stand as it has been resolved.
    I support the terms of settlement as they are. There is no need 
for further debate. I hope this letter will help persuade you that 
the settlement needs no further amendment. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce Reynolds


[[Page 25336]]




MTC-00010665

From: millers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:19pm
    Please we have had enough. Most people are sick of the 
government waste in pursueing Microsoft. Let it go more harm than 
good is being done. We need less government intervention not more or 
as in this case prolonged waste of court time and money.
    Thank you
    David G Miller
    [email protected]



MTC-00010666

From: Fred Grott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
    The proposed settlement does not settle any specific points 
within the anti-trust judgment.
    Question: How much of embarrassment for the US DOJ would it be 
if the settlement in Europe under their laws succeeds to redress 
Microsoft's Monopolistic practices where the US DOJ fails in 
obligation to the US Public's trust?
    No matter what settlement is implemented, remember this . . . 
Worldwide computer users, software developers, hardware vendors, 
software vendors, and etc will remember where you failed and some of 
us happen to vote upon those lines in the next round of up coming 
elections in the US.
    Fred Grott
    [email protected]



MTC-00010667

From: Professor Time
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have written on this antitrust case many times over the past 
few months. Now that the government seems to be doing what is in the 
best interest of the consumers, I feel that any attempt to 
``derail'' this settlement is just another example of bureaucratic 
overspending.
    Let us put an end to this nonsense and go back to being truly 
competitive. Agressiveness is not always a dirty word. Sometimes it 
is just another way of saying ``Yankee Trading''.
    Thank you.
    W. Craig Westlake.



MTC-00010668

From: Alfred E Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    The Microseoft settlement is fair. Please stand by it!.
    Thank you.
    Al Johnson



MTC-00010669

From: Bill Loytty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:47pm
Subject: One vote for accepting the proposed settlement.
    Dear staffer who tallies these things:
    Please add one vote to the ``accept the settlement and get on 
with it'' pile.



MTC-00010670

From: Arougthopher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a developer and user of the BeOS operating system, produced 
by Be, Incorporated. BeOS is a product that is used world wide. 
Recently Be, Inc. was forced to sell its intellectual properties to 
Palm, Inc., due to problems getting themselves situated in the 
market place. One of the main reasons for this can be summed up in 
one word, Microsoft. I am part of a group of people trying to get 
BeOS back into the marketplace, but in order for us to this, 
Microsoft cannot be allowed to get away with what the actions they 
have taken in the past, and continue to take. The proposed 
settlement is a start, but some work is needed. The following is a 
list of items that I feel would help in our cause, and they the US 
DOJ, could help us accomplish.
    1. Microsoft Office needs to use open file formats, so that 
alternate operating systems can interact with it properly. We don't 
need the source code, just the file format. The format chosen should 
be standardized by a recognized standards body, and maintained by 
them. This way, future compatibility can be maintained.
    2. The Win32 API needs to be made publicly available and fully 
documented. This is needed so that products, like BeWine or WinBe 
can be used to run MS Windows applications under the BeOS.
    3. The file systems used by Windows, needs to be opened, so that 
operating systems that exist on the same machine as MS Windows, will 
be able to access the files that exist under the Windows 
directories. Microsoft should also be forced to interoperate with 
foreign file systems as well.
    4. The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that any 
OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with, must have a alternate 
operating system installed, if Windows is installed on that system. 
This is the only way alternate operating systems will ever be given 
a chance by average users.
    The last point I made is the most important. This is the only 
way the Microsoft can truly undo the damage they have done to the 
BeOS. Because Microsoft had made exclusive contracts with almost all 
of the major OEMs in the industry, not many people ever even heard 
of BeOS. Be, Inc. is/was a small company, and did not have the 
marketing budget the Microsoft has. And since they were unable to 
make deals with the OEMs, they could not get their product to 
market, except on the shelves of retail stores, over the internet, 
and by word of mouth.
    The current proposed settlement is too weak, for the damage that 
Microsoft has done


to the industry. I don't think Microsoft should be put out of 
business, but they should be punished. I currently use some 
Microsoft products, and therefore do not consider myself anti-
Microsoft. I do, however, believe in capitalism, and what Microsoft 
did was inexcusable.
    Thank you for your time,
    Paul Ashford



MTC-00010671

From: Richard Paul
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/12/02  8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Paul
1134 2nd Street North
Fargo, ND 58102
January 12, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard A. Paul



MTC-00010672

From: Spencer Grey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:26pm
Subject: Opinion of MS Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I would like to add my voice to those who are against the 
current proposed settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    I feel the proposal does little to either redress past 
transgressions that Microsoft has made or to meaningfully prohibit 
monopolistic behavior from Microsoft in the future. The measures 
outlined in the settlement are not realistically enforceable and 
subject to manipulation and interpretation.
    Consumers and developers alike will ultimately benefit from more 
stringent action being taken against Microsoft. Please take this 
into account when you make your final decision.
    Thank you for your patience and understanding.


[[Page 25337]]

    Respectfully,
    --Spencer Grey, President
    ** Electric Funstuff
    ** http://www.electricfunstuff.com



MTC-00010673

From: Mary Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement



MTC-00010673 0001

142 LOWELL ST. APT 3
1ST FLOOR REAR
MANCHESTER, NH 03104
MARY A. HENRY
Telephone (603) 666-0574
email: [email protected]
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I enthusiastically support the Microsoft settlement and hope to 
see it enacted in the immediate future. The sooner the settlement is 
enacted, the sooner Microsoft will be able to return to the business 
of making quality software.
    The settlement includes many concessions on the part of 
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to licensing restrictions. These 
licensing restrictions will allow the twenty largest computer makers 
to license the Windows' operating system at the same price. This 
allows computer makers more freedom to select the software that they 
want to ship to their customers.
    Microsoft has come to this settlement with interest in resolving 
this issue. We should resolve it as soon as the public comment ends.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Henry



MTC-00010673-0002



MTC-00010674

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel strongly that Microsoft should be punished for it's 
transgressions.
    There is a horrible misunderstanding of the point of the suit in 
the first place. Microsoft is a monopoly and has used that monopoly 
position to force others out of business or to bend to fit their 
desires.
    Microsoft has done tremendous injury to the Java community, 
Netscape, Apple and countless others with it's anti-competitive 
practices. It affects people's freedom to choose among alternatives. 
It affects the price people must pay, directly or indirectly. It 
also has longer-term implications for prople's privacy and security. 
It means less innovation and lower quality software. Please consider 
this when making your decision. Thank you very much.
    Kate Ruter



MTC-00010675

From: Dr. L. E. F. Page
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    While the Tunney Act requires a public comment period, please be 
aware that lobbying groups can flood the system with ``public 
comment.'' Haven't we spent enough time trying to limit Microsoft 
Corp.'s ability to remain an innovative industry leader? The 
settlement seems just as proposed, without further breaking up or 
restrictions, and I feel you should affirm it as soon as legally 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie Page (concerned private citizen and internet user)



MTC-00010676

From: Adi Ben Yahya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft--a bully
    It is clear that Microsoft is the biggest bully in the school 
yard. Worse still, it's now grown so big that it jeers at the 
teacher's warnings. For the sake of the others, and ultimately the 
bully, it's time to discipline mischievous behaviour.
    AB
    [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010678

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Ashcroft letter sent this date via US 
mail.



MTC-00010679

From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: PLEASE LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE. OUR ECONOMY IS JUST ABOUT SHOT!! YOU'RE NOT HELPING 
IT ONE BIT. PLEASE LEAVE MR GATES AND HIS COMPANY ALONE. AMERICA 
DOESN'T NEED ANYMORE INSULTS. PLEASE END THIS NIGHTMARE AND LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE.
    THANK YOU,
    MARY-JOHNE HICKMAN



MTC-00010680

From: Jim Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:13pm
Subject: public comment: Microsoft antitrust litigation
    I am writing this email to send a short statement on what I 
believe would be a suitable remedy to the Microsoft antitrust 
litigation. This is in response to the public comment that was 
invited for 60 days.
    After reviewing the findings of fact in this trial, and based on 
my position and experience in the Information Technology industry, I 
cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even pretends to 
remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has been found 
culpable. A suitable penalty, in


my opinion, would be to split the Microsoft company into two halves: 
one that provides operating systems, and one that provides 
application software (including the web browser.) The two halves 
must be prohibited from bundling the other's products for a period 
of no less than seven (7) years. Further, only one of the split 
companies should be allowed to carry the ``Microsoft'' name, to 
prevent confusion in the marketplace that the two halves still 
operate as one. I believe that such a remedy would require the new 
companies to fairly compete with other software companies in the 
marketlace. Microsoft would not be able to leverage a monopoly on 
the operating system at the desktop level to push application 
software. Other vendors would be put on a more level playing field 
with the two Microsoft companies. Thank you for your consideration 
of my comment.
    James Hall
    1254 Lafond Ave
    St Paul, MN 55104



MTC-00010681

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/12/02  11:43pm
Subject: [email protected]
1102 Lincoln Street Potter, NE 69156-0068
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a long-time Microsoft supporter. As such, I am pleased with 
the settlement reached last November with the department of Justice. 
The settlement is a vital end to the litigation process that has 
crippled the IT industry in recent years.
    The details of the settlement are complex. Microsoft has agreed 
to many terms that will increase competitor's ability to access the 
Windows' operating system. First, Microsoft has agreed to disclose 
the internal interfaces of its software design. This allows 
developers to substitute their software in place of the Microsoft 
network. The terms of the settlement will allow users to erase 
separate aspects from the operating system, such as Explorer or 
Media Player.
    This settlement is in the public interest. It provides an 
opportunity for the IT industry to rebuild itself. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Wills



MTC-00010683

From: melinda stortenbecker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:06am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Get it over with. Competition and free enterprise are what made 
this nation a hope for everyone, not just a few wealthy. When Gates 
started, he was just a nobody with drive and determination. Leave it 
be. Melinda Stortenbecker



MTC-00010684

From: Eugene Vilensky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a college student and a computer enthusiast and future 
programmer, it is my strong belief that Microsoft has done 
irreparable harm to the computer industry. 


[[Page 25338]]

They have done wrong and 
deserve to be punished not because they are a successful company, 
but because they have violated anticompetitive law, and have done it 
with an air of arrogance and political clout and disrespect for the 
wishes of consumers.
    It is understood that Microsoft is the U.S.' single most 
successful company, but they have not done it by pushing out a 
quality product that has fought for its own Darwinian place in the 
marketplace. They did it by choking off competition--in the case of 
preventing computers from shipping with BeOS installed alongside 
Windows (or any dual-boot configuration). I was and still am a big 
fan of the Be Operating System, it was a powerful tool that would in 
a free market have won marketshare on its own merit, but it suffered 
because people could not find computers with BeOS installed, hence 
the main tenet of competition--consumer choice--was choked off by 
Microsoft. Even now I cannot go to BestBuy or circuit city or 
Dell.com and easily order a preconfigured Linux machine. Even now 
Microsoft is plotting the destruction of consumer choice.
    And if we don't punish Microsoft for breaking the law, why can 
they not be brought to justice for delivering inferior products? If 
GM didn't have Ford to contend with, would you, the ``Department of 
Justice'' allow such a GM to ship cars with faulty clutches and 
breaks, that would harm people's livelihoods as much as Microsoft 
bugs have stolen money from my employer and my fathers employer and 
the company that my uncle owns? The damage is in the thousands of 
dollars, because Microsoft can defecate in a box, brand it as 
`Windows', and the market is forced to accept it. We demand some 
semblance of quality from our auto manufacturers, so why not from 
our software suppliers? I hope that the DoJ really lives up to its 
name, promotes competition and products that succeed on their merits 
and creates an economy in which two or even three or four 
`Microsofts' can coexist, improving each generation of software upon 
that which came before, learning that customers are important when 
there is an alternative, and each employing thousands of people and 
strengthening the economy.
    Best regards,
    Eugene
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00010685

From: Mike Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My impression is that the government has spent so much time 
listening to disgruntled competitors of Microsoft that it has missed 
the end user exposure.
    The end user problem with Microsoft is not that it makes 
software that competes with other companies. The problem is not that 
sometimes MS integrates software into its operating system. From the 
end user perspective, the software on a PC should be vertically 
integrated. And it should be done by a single manufacturer.
    From an end user standpoint, just try to identify the 
responsible software maker when something doesn't work and more than 
one software maker potentially is responsible. The difficulty to the 
end user goes up exponentially with the number of different software 
makers involved. E.g Microsoft Windows with Netscape Navigator and 
something doesn't work. Neither Microsoft or Netscape will take 
responsibility. They just point fingers (if they talk to you at all) 
to each other.
    The problem is that MS dominates the Operating System market and 
therefore can dictate terms to the end user. What the end user needs 
is a viable number of choices for an Operating System. More Linux 
operating systems on new PCs; more OS2 operating systems on new PCs; 
more Apple systems out there.
    As an end user, I'd much prefer having a viable choice of what 
operating system I would be using on my intel based (there's another 
problem) PC. The DOJ has focused on fixing things for malcontents 
such as Netscape (whose browsers are clearly inferior to Explorer 
and whose own ethics are somewhat suspect). That may be a problem 
for companies like Netscape but it is certainly not as significant a 
problem for the end user as the total dominance of MS in the 
operating system world.
    The end user is going to be up a creek without a paddle in the 
future because of the near universal usage of Windows. The DOJ focus 
should be on making the playing field more level for alternative 
Operating systems.



MTC-00010686

From: Jim Herrmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    First some of my background. I have been a computer professional 
for 15 years, specializing in data base administration. My 
professional career has been mostly with mainframe data bases, but I 
have done extensive work from my home with personal computers. I 
maintain several web sites for various volunteer organizations to 
which I belong.
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by 
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big 
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign 
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department 
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's 
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case, 
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if 
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's 
Monopoly. For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the 
punishment and not the politically (and monitarily) motivated DOJ. 
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be 
REJECTED!
    I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and 
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more


sense. I refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/
cases/f9400/9495.htm
    III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...
    Not only should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM 
pricing should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should 
be required to pay full retail price for the operating system and 
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words, 
strike paragraphs III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement. 
Furthermore, the OEM should be required to list this cost as part of 
total cost of the machine, and offer all machines they sell with 
either alternative operating systems, or no operating system at all 
installed. This would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the 
``Microsoft tax'' they are paying with each new computer system. 
Allowing users to remove items from a purchased machine is 
inadequate, as they have already payed the ``tax'' and Microsoft 
goes unpunished.
    III.D ...Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, ...the APIs and related Documentation... While this is a step 
in the right direction, Microsoft should be compelled to make 
public, not simply to certain companies but to the public, all 
operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every single file 
format, current and future, created or used by any of their 
products. The interfaces and file formats should not be allowed to 
be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow Microsoft 
to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other payment of 
monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their products. 
This will promote true competition by allowing other companies and 
the open source community to write programs that can be fully 
compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the Microsoft 
monopoly products.
    II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties...
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license...
    This paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft 
that will allow them to get away with keeping large parts of the 
interface to their systems a secret by saying that the disclosure 
would ``compromise the security'' of that system. The APIs and file 
formats I mentioned above should be excluded from this paragraph.
    Section V. Termination
    B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found 
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time 
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with 
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
    So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft 
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their 
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an 
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section 
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This 
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails 
to comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not 
in compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be 
an incentive for compliance!
    In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted 
monopolist should include


[[Page 25339]]

 the opening and documenting of all 
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the 
documented specification of all file formats for documents created 
by their products should be public domain, and the complete 
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently 
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes 
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be 
severe.
    A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in 
the national interest and national security. A study released a year 
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually 
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to 
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as 
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is 
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and 
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software 
marketplace be implemented.
    Thanks you for your time,
    Jim Herrmann
    Kansas City, Kansas



MTC-00010687

From: Steven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To Whom it may concern;
    Please consider the settlement offered by Microsoft. Learning 
tools and teaching has never been but should be the number 1 
concern. Any thing that bolsters the teaching enviorment instead of 
the N.F.L. will benefit the future of this nation.
    Give our children computers.
    Concerned;
    Steven R. Evers



MTC-00010688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My comments about the proposed final settlement are simple:
    1. The settlement ruling must be properly enforced otherwise it 
is a complete waste of time.
    2. Microsoft Corp. has shown and *continues* to show no 
reasonable regard for any person, company, product or authority that 
presents an obstacle to the continued growth of Microsoft. They are 
the new Mafia.
    I offer the following news articles to illustrate my point. Note 
that eliminating Linux software is ranked second on Microsoft's 
agenda for 2002, despite the fact that Microsoft has 96.28% of the 
OS market compared to 2.32% for Apple and .24% for Linux. But Linux 
has had success with server software and Microsoft also wants to 
contol the internet, so ``the spread of Linux'' must be prevented.
    Ximian Gives Linux a Friendly Face
    New software package features a graphical interface, but is the 
company's first product that won't be free.
    Matt Berger, IDG News Service
    Tuesday, August 28, 2001
    Ximian Desktop, the first packaged software product from the 
Boston-based company, includes a suite of desktop applications and a 
graphical user interface for Linux PCs,
    ``We see the biggest opportunity of open source on the desktop 
in the corporation,'' says Nat Friedman...
    [continues]
    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/O, aid, 59743, tk, 
dnO82801X, 00 .asp

    Topic: MS Internet Monopoly
    Msg #381712
    Date: Wed,  Aug 29, 2001, 2:11:07 PM
From ZDnet:
    ``The Burton Group analyst Gary Hein says Microsoft.Net can be 
summarized in one simple statement: Microsoft is building an 
Internet monopoly ... Does the very nature of the Internet prevent 
one company from monopolizing the Internet? In a perfect world, 
market forces and open standards would prevail. But this isn't a 
perfect world''
    Continues:
    http://news.excite.com/news/zd/0l0829/ll/microsoftnet-a-new
    ``It's unquestionable that .Net integration will simplify the 
Internet experience for millions of users. But at what cost? As a 
society, are we willing to cede control of the Internet to Microsoft 
for the sake of usability and convenience? Success is far from 
guaranteed, but Microsoft will do everything in its power to win. 
Our eternal vigilance is the only barrier between Microsoft and its 
next monopoly.''
    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/
0,aid,59743,tk,dn082801X,00.asp

    Topic: ``Software libre!''
    Msg #381768
    Date: Thu,  Aug 30, 2001, 5:34:09 PM
    Governments push open-source software
    By Paul Festa
    Staff Writer, CNET News.com
    August 29, 2001, 4:00 a.m. PT
    Governments around the world have found a new rallying cry--
''Software libre!``--and Microsoft is working overtime to quell it.
    A recent global wave of legislation is compelling government 
agencies, and in some cases government-owned companies, to use open-
source or free software unless proprietary software is the only 
feasible option.
    This legal movement, earliest and most pronounced in Brazil, but 
also showing signs of catching on elsewhere in Latin America, Europe 
and Asia, is finding ready converts as governments struggle to close 
sometimes vast digital divides with limited information-technology 
budgets. So far, there is no evidence that similar legislation is 
being considered anywhere in the United States, experts said.
    Open-source and free software represent a budget-priced 
alternative to Microsoft's Windows operating system and applications 
that can cost thousands of dollars a month to license. In addition, 
access to underlying source code means governments and


businesses can fix problems or modify software to work more 
effectively.
    [continues]
    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6996393.html?tag=tp--pr

    Linux Left Behind: Microsoft, Apple Still Kings of the Desktop
    By Remy Davison, Insanely Great Mac
    December 19, 2001
    Linux may well be capturing more and more of the server market, 
but it has still failed to make inroads into the desktop market, 
according to StatMarket statistical data, published by WebSideStory.
    StatMarket places Linux's web usage at less than 1% of total 
internet use. As of December 17, Linux's share of world wide web use 
was a *mere 0.24%.* StatMarket says that while use of Linux to 
access the net has fluctuated between 2 and 3% over the past three 
years, the operating system has not demonstrated real growth in 
terms of internet usage.
    ``Linux has made inroads as a server operating system, but not 
on desktops. Its adoption rate among Web users remains miniscule, 
even in three years' time.''
    Linux--More Bark than Bite.
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0l1219/lawO37--l.html>

    Macintosh OS Global Market Share Less Than 3% for Three Years, 
But Shows Promise in Some Countries SAN DIEGO, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire/--
WebSideStory, Inc. (www.websidestory.com), the world's leading 
provider of outsourced e-business intelligence services, today 
reported that the global market share for Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) 
Macintosh operating system has remained at less than 3 percent since 
January 1999, failing to take significant market share from 
Microsoft. Mac's global usage share as of January 2, 2002, was 
``2.32 percent'', compared to *Microsoft's 96.28 percent* as of the 
same date, according to WebSideStory's StatMarket 
(www.statmarket.com) New Microsoft Program Rallies Forces To Crush 
Linux Enterprise & Partner Group chief to oversee Linux/Unix 
escalation process (URL: http://www.crn.com/Sections/BreakingNews/
breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=32424)
    By Paula Rooney
    CRN
    Redmond, Wash.
    7:12 PM EST Tues., Jan. 08, 2002
    Microsoft plans to rally its field sales force and partners to 
crush Linux--and IBM's efforts with the competitive operating 
system--in 2002.
    According to a Microsoft memo dated in December, the software 
giant will unveil a ``Linux Insiders'' program at the company's 
Envision event in January, an expansion of its existing Linux 
Competitive Champ Program.
    Microsoft also created a new Linux/Unix escalation process that 
is being headed up by Microsoft Enterprise & Partner Group Vice 
President Charles Stevens, according to the memo, which was written 
by Brian Valentine, senior vice president of Windows for Microsoft.
    Valentine emphasized that Microsoft will take a more aggressive 
role in beating Linux--and any vendors that supports it. ``I want 
you to know just how seriously we're taking Linux here in Redmond 
.... We have the best d*mn sales force in the world backed by the 
best engineers in the world--of course we will take any non-Windows 
OS serious,'' Valentine wrote. ``Linux is out there in some 


[[Page 25340]]

of your accounts and you may not know it. The ground up nature of how 
Linux is introduced into our accounts means that we need to modify our 
traditional approaches of finding out about Linux in our customer 
base. We have to be more hands-on and dig deeper in your accounts.''
    The Linux/Unix escalation process being headed up by the 
Enterprise & Partner Group involves getting Microsoft's field sales 
force and solution providers to tap into the expertise of the 
Microsoft ``Linux Insiders'' to advance Windows 2000 and unseat 
rivals Unix and Linux in the server marketplace. The ``Linux 
Insiders,'' a task force of Microsoft experts on Linux that will be 
unveiled at Envision, will assist the sales force and partners in 
preventing the spread of Linux--as well as IBM mainframes/Unix 
servers running Linux--in corporate server centers, according to the 
memo. ``By building a virtual team of field staff and corporate 
resources, we will enable the field to have one place to go for 
communication and competitive information. The Linux Insiders will 
have access to a centralized Web site where personnel can request 
help, route issues and share best practices that the entire field 
can leverage,'' Valentine wrote. ``If you still need help for 
Global, Strategic and Major accounts, the Linux/Sun Insiders (or 
your General Manager) can escalate the issue to the new corporate 
Linux/Unix Escalation Team. Let me emphasize that you need to work 
with your local Insider or your GM because they have direct access 
to this escalation team. The team is committed to provide an initial 
response within one working day.''
    Microsoft also intends to commission an independent analysis by 
DH Brown to attack the perception that Linux is free, the memo said. 
Another cost analysis comparison case study between Linux and 
Windows, due in May, will assess a variety of usage scenarios such 
as Web, file and print.
    In the memo, Valentine encourages staffers to snoop around 
corporate server environments to locate new sightings of Unix and 
Linux. The software giant apparently is concerned about inroads made 
by IBM and other Linux backers in the IT segment. ``Ask about the 
`connector' pieces--you'll potentially find Linux in these areas. 
This is a great way to not only find out about Linux, but also other 
IT projects that may include Novell, Sun, Oracle and other 
competitors,'' the memo said. ``You can expect us to turn up the 
volume on winning against Linux, as well as IBM.''
    According to Directions on Microsoft, a Kirkland, Wash.-based 
newsletter covering the software giant, ``Linux ranks second among 
Microsoft's top 10 challenges for 2002''--next only to engendering 
trust in the enterprise for security and reliability. ``This free 
but powerful operating system is hurting Microsoft competitors such 
as Novell and Sun in the server market, but it could also dampen 
growth in Microsoft's server software sales,'' according to the 
Directions on Microsoft report issued on Jan. 8. ``IBM is trying to 
make Linux a household name. Meanwhile, Microsoft is adding to 
Linux's appeal with higher licensing fees and product activation 
technologies designed to prevent unpaid use of Microsoft software.'' 
One systems integrator that sells and services both Linux and 
Windows said Microsoft's big push against Linux is not a problem in 
the short term, but could pose a conflict in the future. ``This will 
not affect us in the current market because ... our current revenue 
with Caldera is on Unix platforms,'' said Rich Figer, vice president 
of sales at S.B. Stone & Company, Cleveland. ``In the future, 
however, when Linux and Unix become closer to one product we could 
find ourselves in competition with Microsoft operating systems. Most 
of the Unix/Linux market is highly driven by application vendors. If 
application vendors choose not to develop on Linux that would be a 
much bigger problem. If Microsoft puts their energy in to alienating 
application vendors from Linux it would cause problems.''
    S.B. Stone, for instance, does 25 percent to 30 percent of its 
business with Caldera on Unix platforms, but Microsoft represents 
the rest of its business.
    Copyright 1999 CMP Media Inc.

    Topic: MS rigging votes again
    Msg #389420
    Date: Thu,  Jan 10, 2002, 6:47:00 PM
    Sinking to new depths of desperation in its war against Java, 
Microsoft has been caught stuffing ballots during an online vote 
concerning web services.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23612.html
    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2102244,00.html
    The vote, run by ZDNet UK was to see which technology 
enterprises were planning to use, to deploy web services. Java was 
the clearly winning, having amassed two thirds of the votes. 
However, the chaps at ZDNet became a little suspicious by the 
complete reversal in statistics a week later ... MS .NET was the 
clear winner! A quick look at the server logs revealed an 
unprecedented number of votes, originating from the same people 
within the Microsoft's domain. One person had even voted 228 times 
.... They also found evidence that automated scripts, executing from 
servers within Microsoft, were being used to rig the vote. 
Microsoft's lack of honesty in attempting to carry out such an act, 
is only matched by the stupid, hamfisted way they executed it.

    Topic: Rio Riot: 5,000 songs
    Msg #389401
    Date: Thu,  Jan 10, 2002, 1:36:01 PM
    Alan:
    What WERE they thinking?! They were thinking, probably 
correctly, that their largest audience, PC-users, don't have 
FireWire. So why bother adding it given the ``cost'' and 
``complexity'' of an Oxford 911. Even so, it's a USB 1.1 device, not 
even 2.0, which is strange.
    This year, all the local employees of the company I work for 
were offered a sweetener when buying a new PC through the company; 
the cost was deducted from your gross salary, so your benefit is 
that you pay less income tax (i.e. if your highest band is 42%, you


really pay only 58% of the computer's cost). Brand-spanking new with 
XP. FireWire was not an option. (Obviously, neither were Macs) 
(Note: This particular person does not live in the U.S. and 
therefore is not subject to U.S. tax laws.)
    2. Unless otherwise provided in the revised proposed Final 
Judgment, Microsoft shall begin complying with the revised proposed 
Final Judgment as it was in full force and effect starting on 
December 16, 2001.
    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,
    I.``ISV'' means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged 
in the development or marketing of software products.

    Thank you for your time.
    Gerald W. ``Grady'' Goodwin, concerned citizen



MTC-00010690

From: Iain O'Cain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a consultant whose livelyhood is threatened by Microsoft's 
abuse of their monopoly power. In recent years, I've moved 
progressively farther from use of Microsoft products in my own and 
my clients' solutions for office applications and Internet services. 
Some of the language in the settlement recently proposed by the 
Department of Justice concerns me greatly. It appears to me that 
this settlement would not only fail to curtail Microsoft's abuses, 
much less provide punitive deterrence or compensation to consumers, 
but could actually help strengthen Microsoft's attacks on openly 
available software.
    Much of the language I've read in this proposed settlement seems 
to grant Microsoft undue powers for determining their 
responsibilities. Some examples include:
    Section III(J)(2) seems to allow Microsoft to continue 
restricting access to their API, Documentation, and Communications 
Protocols from anyone they consider not to be a business! In 
particular, ``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business...'' seems outrageous to me. Providing my 
clients with access to their data often calls for the use of 
software like Samba,\1\ which is developed noncommercially through 
the collaboration of consultants like myself with the result of 
helping all our business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Information on the Samba project is available at http://
us1.samba.org/samba/samba.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section III(D) appears to further limits Microsoft's obligation 
to share their API details except to organizations defined as 
commercial. What about projects like I've already mentioned? What 
about the government's own projects? I know that many consultants 
like myself have had to depend at times on the public availability 
of software developed at public expense by branches of the 
government.
    Microsoft have already destroyed, through the practice of 
bundling, their main competition in the Internet browser market 
despite Netscape's huge lead. Their greatest rival now may be the 
Mozilla\2\ browser, 

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

    \2\Information on the Mozilla project is available at http://
mozilla.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25341]]

which is developed by a diverse collaboration, 
again noncommercially.

    Despite bundling Web (WWW) server software and tying that to 
their Web content authoring software, Microsoft has yet to dominate 
that area. Consultants such as myself still prefer by some margin to 
deploy the more efficient, collaboratively developed Apache\3\ 
software. Yet Microsoft continues to attack our ability to deploy 
such Open Source\4\ solutions when it encourages or even forces by 
its market position the deployment of its own software, while 
keeping its software interfaces secret and designing that software 
to depend on connections with Microsoft's own products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Information on the Apache projects is available at http://
www.apache.org/.
    \4\Information on the practice of Open Source development is 
available at http://www.opensource.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I urge everyone involved to exact greater remedies. Please 
restrict Microsoft's ability to wield its monopolies against 
innovation by other parties as it has so clearly and consistently 
done. Microsoft should have to publicly reveal any software 
interfaces they might conceivably use as leverage to block 
competition because they have proved how cynically they have been 
willing to exploit every advantage to illegally block competition 
throughout their existence.
    Thank you for considering this input.
    Sincerely,
    Iain O'Cain [email protected]>
    6125 Oakpark Trail
    Haslett, MI 48840



MTC-00010694

From: Troy Lister
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Troy Lister
3130 Oak Road, Apt. 418
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7752
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Troy Lister



MTC-00010695

From: Harris L. Gilliam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writting as a concerned consumer and professional in the 
computer indestry to respond to the proposed settlement of the 
lawsuit against Microsoft. I watched with much interest the trial 
and events that followed. Many industry experts predicted that 
Microsoft would indeed be found guilty of anti-competative behavior. 
They also correctly predicted that Microsoft would use its 
considerable finacial might to ``wait out'' its opponents. This is 
exactly what Microsoft has done. They have dragged out the court 
battle long enough that the operating systems and products that were 
originally in question are almost obsolete. They have protected 
their monopoloy position.
    The remedies proposed do not go far enough to protect the 
industry and its consumers from Microsoft's predatory behavior. I 
welcome the provisions to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against 
companies that chose to use competetive products. I welcome the 
provisions that require Microsoft to publish documentation and 
license APIs. These will provide the posibility for third-party 
software that competes with Microsoft. Sadly that is all it will do. 
It will not significantly change the choices that OEMs have because 
Microsoft has already extinguished all third-party competition. OEMs 
and other software developers still have a strong financial 
incentive to *not* compete with Microsoft. There still is no other 
OS which can replace Windows in the PC desktop market. This is 
because all the products and software people are dependant on is 
written for Windows. The duration of Microsoft's monopoly makes it 
prohibitive for any company to arise and produce an alternative to 
Windows or Microsoft's consumer products (which, for the most part, 
work exclusively with Windows).
    For so long consumers have been forced to use Microsoft products 
they have become ``slaves'' to the software. There isn't a corporate 
IT manager alive that would attempt to build an office system on 
anything except Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Schools that 
train office administrators and secretaries pretty much use 
Microsoft products exclusively. Redmond would like to have you 
believe this situation developed because they have 
superior products. A conversation with anyone who works in an office 
or the casual reading of a trade publication would dispell that myth 
quickly. There is barely a day that passes without some report of a 
security hole or major defect being found in a Microsoft product. 
The stranglehold that Microsoft has on the industry must be broken. 
The only way the damage that Microsoft's monopoly has done can be 
truly remedied is to create a finacial viable market for software 
which competes directly with Microsoft products.
    Possible ways to achieve this include:
    (1) Require that Microsoft produce versions of all its 
middleware products (IE, Microsoft Office, etc) for non-Microsoft 
operating systems. This will give OEM's and consumers a choice of 
what OS to use on their machines. It is clear that there is only a 
choice if OEMs and consumers can still use the products they have 
become dependant upon.
    (2) Require that Microsoft publish documentation for and licence 
not only the APIs that make software compatible with Windows but 
also the details of the file formats for their Office suite of 
products. Again this is intended to allow OEMs and consumers to have 
a choice of what OS to run on their machines. If third-party 
software can be written which is entirely compatible with 
Microsoft's file formats then this software would also be free to 
run on any OS that a competing company chooses.
    There are sure to be other ways to achieve the neccesary goal of 
creating a real opportunity for competition with Microsoft. While 
the curretly proposed remedies do much to prevent certain direct 
monopolistic behaviour by Microsoft it does little to correct the 
unnatural prosition Microsoft enjoys in the marketplace. There are 
few companies in any industry who can consistiently produce 
substandard products, as Microsoft does, and yet not incur the 
``wrath'' of the consumers. When you have no other choice you settle 
for what you can get. As they used to say about Musolini: ``He is a 
cruel dictator but at least the trains now run on time.'' The recent 
attiude Microsoft has shown with regard to its Windows XP product 
(continued bundling of Microsoft-exclusive software and technologies 
to stifle competition) and its overall practice of limiting consumer 
choice demonstrates that Microsoft is not in the least repentant. It 
is clear to this consumer that they don't plan to change their 
behavior anytime soon.
    The government's decision to not persue further legal action is 
a great disappointment. I can only hope the states, who have refused 
to cave in to Microsoft, fair well in their continued battle. 
Otherwise I don't expect to see any change in the situation.
    Harris L. Gilliam
    Director of Engineering
    Supewings, Inc.



MTC-00010696

From: Gheorghiu Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day,
    My name is Gheoghiu Alex and I'm from Europe/Romania. I'm 24 
years old and I work with computers since 14 (so I had 10 years of 
experience). Right now I'm a student at Faculty of Informatics and 
Faculty of Bioengineering.
    1. A few years ago when the Internet emerged Netscape browser 
was the first and best browser that allow a person to navigate 

[[Page 25342]]

on the Internet. This browser was provided by Netscape. After a year 
or so, Microsoft launched a browser, named Internet Explorer and 
incorporated it in Microsoft Windows 95 an Microsoft Windows 98. So 
when you have something that came for nothing and it is imposed you 
will used it; and so Nescape in a few years almost disappeared from 
the browser market.
    2. Around 95 Sun Microsystem launched a new programming language 
named Java whose purpose was to allow you to write a program that 
will work on every operating system like: Microsoft Windows, Linux, 
Unix, to work with special devices like future cell-phones, palmtops 
and even to incorporate in a cars computer, microwaves, TV, etc. 
When they see that this language became so popular among programmers 
they decide to stop its ascension and try to pervert its basic roles 
but Sun Microsystem, IBM, Oracle continues to follow initial concept 
totally independence from platform.
    3. Here is a small funny thing when Microsoft take the 
leadership in browser war, they took all rivals facilities (those 
facilities included Java) and so Microsoft kept the Java in their 
browser. Now they have monopole and because of that they to throws 
away Java from the Internet Explorer 6.0 browser and put their 
proprietary languages like VisualBasic. All I want to say is that 
Microsoft step by step take control of very aspect of computer 
world, from operating system to cell phones.
    I know that USA is a country where freedom is the law (my 
country was under URSS sphere of influence for 50 years and I saw at 
my grandparents and my parents what this mean) and I hope that this 
humble mail will be a warning for what Microsoft is trying to do. I 
do not want my children to live in a Microsoft world and when Ill be 
very old my computer that will monitor my life signals to crush (or 
to breakdown) ( oh, sorry I've forgotten to say that after THEY 
become monopolistic in a special domain their products become 
unreliable and full of errors).
    I think that will be best for all to listen to Sun Microsystem 
and Linux RedHat proposals.
    Thank you,
    Alex
    Please excuse my English.



MTC-00010697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:01am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Microsoft has a history of attempting to monopolise the market 
in every way it can. The competition comes from Linux. Any remedy to 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices should include the following.
    It is almost totally impossible to buy a computer that does not 
have Microsoft's operating system installed. This is a major part of 
the problem. A user who wants to install another operating system 
must pay for the Microsoft operating system even though it is not 
desired. The first requirement for a reasonable remedy should 
require that Microsoft's products should be available as extra-cost 
options when purchasing new computers. The price that is charged 
should be the same as that when not purchasing a computer. In this 
way, real competition could begin.
    The proprietary formats of Microsoft's document file formats 
(both current and future) should be made public, so that competing 
products may read documents created with Microsoft products. This 
should apply to all the document formats used by all the Microsoft 
Office products. 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.
    All the Microsoft networking protocols should be published 
fully, and made available for open source developers to implement. 
The current proposed settlement limits access to open source 
development in a way that benefits Microsoft. Open source is the 
major means of providing competition to Microsoft. The settlement 
should not exclude open source developers from access to information 
about Microsoft protocols that can be used directly. Microsoft is 
not adverse to using open source software, then altering it in minor 
ways to create a new and incompatible ``Microsoft'' protocol. See 
the way Microsoft has ``embraced and extended'' the Kerberos 
protocol so that only Microsoft Kerberos servers are compatible with 
Microsoft clients. You need to take action to prevent Microsoft from 
embracing and extending the Internet, which till now has been an 
open environment created by many for the benefit of many, and owned 
by no one.
    Nick Urbanik RHCE
    Dept. of Information & Communications Technology
    Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (Tsing Yi)
    Tel: (852)-2436-8576, (852)-2436-8579
    Fax: (852)-2436-8526
    [email protected] PGP: 53 B6 6D 73 52 EE 1F EE EC F8 21 98 45 1C 
23 7B ID: 7529555D



MTC-00010698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:29am
Subject: Microsoft settlement of suit
    In my opinion the suit against Microsoft should be settled as 
soon as possible. The continuing litigation is not good for the 
consumer or the economy. It would benefit all, except the Microsoft 
competitors, to put an end to this matter. Please accept the 
judgment against Microsoft and let that be the end of this.
    Jill Sitcer (Mrs. Gary)
    20 BarchesterWay
    Westfield, NJ 07090



MTC-00010699

From: Charles R Heilers


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement seems just and fair. Needs to be put into action.
    Charles R. Heilers
    1270 W CR 580 N
    North Vernon, In. 47265



MTC-00010700

From: Kit Welsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:33am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-001
    DEAR MR. ASHCROFT,
    PROSECUTE OPEC, NOT MICROSOFT OPEC IS THE MONOPOLY THAT HAS 
OPENLY CONSPIRED TO CONTROL PRICES AND THUS ADMITS IT IS A MONOPOLY. 
THE ONLY WAY I CAN SEE TO DEAL WITH OPEC IS TO ORGANIZE THE OIL 
IMPORTING NATIONS INTO A GROUP CALLED OPIC (ORGANIZATION OF OIL 
IMPORTING COUNTRIES). WE COULD THEN WORK TOGETHER TO RESTRICT OR TAX 
PRODUCTS GOING TO THE OIL EXPORTING COUNTRIES IN ORDER TO FORCE THEM 
TO DROP OUT OF OPEC.
    MICROSOFT, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS INCREASED MY PRODUCTIVITY BY 
MAKING SURE THAT ALL THEIR PRODUCTS WORK TOGETHER SEAMLESSLY. WHEN I 
GOT MY FIRST COMPUTER, DOS WAS THE OPERATING SYSTEM AND NOTHING 
SEEMED TO WORK TOGETHER PROPERLY. THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM 
BECAME THE STANDARD BECAUSE CONSUMERS LIKED IT. SO, MICROSOFT CAME 
TO DOMINATE THE MARKET BY PRODUCING THE BEST PRODUCT, NOT BY 
CONSPIRING WITH OTHER PRODUCERS TO CONTROL PRICES.
    THE ONLY REASON THIS LAWSUIT HAPPENED IS BECAUSE MICROSOFT 
CHALLENGED THE COMPETITION BY GIVING IT'S BROWSER AWAY FOR FREE AT A 
TIME WHEN NETSCAPE WAS TRYING TO SELL THEIRS. THAT'S COMPETITION, 
NOT MONOPOLY. IT WAS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER. IF THE GOVERNMENT 
CONSPIRES WITH NETSCAPE TO STOP MICROSOFT FROM GIVING AWAY THEIR 
BROWSER, THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BECOMES THE MONOPOLIST, AND 
THE CONSUMER IS HARMED. PLEASE STOP THIS INSANE PERSECUTION OF A 
COMPANY THAT WAS GREATLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES 
WE SAW DURING THE 90'S. PLEASE STOP PERSECUTING THE ONE COMPANY THAT 
HAS BEEN PRODUCING AN ENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN PRODUCT THAT WE HAVE 
BEEN ABLE TO EXPORT ALL OVER THE WORLD AND HELP WITH OUR BALANCE OF 
PAYMENTS. PLEASE ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSED, AND ALLOW MICROSOFT 
TO USE THE MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING ON THEIR LEGAL DEFENSE TO CREATE 
THE NEXT NEW PRODUCT WHICH WILL INCREASE OUR PRODUCTIVITY AND 
STIMULATE OUR ECONOMY BETTER THAN A TAX CUT.
    SINCERELY,
    KIT WELSCH
    216 ARCHER WAY


[[Page 25343]]

    BOX 1820
    ANNA MARIA, FL 34216-1820
    941-778-5230
    941-778-7229 FAX
    [email protected]



MTC-00010701

From: Lee Wagstaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lee Wagstaff
614 Pine Tree Court
Walled Lake, MI 48390--
Attorney General John Ashcroft
January 12, 2002
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I have very strong feelings regarding the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe that the 
government's intervention in Microsoft affairs has done much to hurt 
the local and global economy. Mr. Attorney General, wrap up this 
settlement now. We can not continue to pride ourselves on our 
``competitive spirit'' and then take action against a company that 
has bolstered the entire economy of our country by that very same 
spirit. And, worse, this action was taken as a result of a few 
complaining companies that could not prosper in a competitive 
environment and, as a result, blamed Microsoft for their failure. 
When the complaining and ultimate threat of legal action drove 
Microsoft market value down, it deteriorated the overall market 
creating a hole that many companies fell into. Again, Mr. Attorney 
General, put an end to this economy debilitating, legal 
misadventure.
    Everyone knows Microsoft has made very significant strides in 
the innovation of this industry. These major innovations may have 
given the impression that Microsoft desired to gain unreasonable 
control over the market. Not so. But in an effort to placate the 
punitively sponsored objections of its competitors, Microsoft has 
agreed to remove certain software features from its Windows 
Operating System to prevent imposition of future antitrust 
violations. Several changes have been made in their business 
practices. Microsoft will disclose the internal interfaces and 
protocols of its Windows software to competitors; allow competitors 
to modify Windows to take out Microsoft software and put in their 
own; and have oversight from a Technical Committee. Their compliance 
has gone beyond the restrictions and obligations at issue in the 
lawsuit. I think that this is more than a fair indicator that 
Microsoft is willing to get back to the business of developing new 
products.
    It is hoped that my expressed views on this issue will aid in 
the resolution of this matter. I am more than happy to know that 
there is so much cooperative effort to that end. Thank you for your 
wise leadership.
    With deepest regards,



MTC-00010702

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:54am
Subject: READ ON
    Hello again:
    I would like to see Microsoft made to offer free to all current 
Microsoft operating systems all of the preceding operating systems 
that the current one obsoleted.
    This is so that the excellent software that was not financially 
successful for the owners could continue to operate for the users of 
the operating systems that need to upgrade to the most recent 
version for other reasons, like keeping current with financially 
successful software companies newest versions.
    I believe that versions like DOS, WIN 3.1, WIN 95 and even WIN 
98 could be classified as free to current owners of WIN ME, 2000 and 
later.
    What do you think? When I gave the idea for WINDOWS to the 
UNITED NATIONS in 1979 and suggested that Bill Gates should develop 
it, that was FOR the WORLD. Not for Bill Gates personal fortune! He 
has turned into a greedy . . .! He was given the idea. He needs to 
give back!
    Very TRULY yours,
    Bernard Solomon Katz



MTC-00010703

From: markrussell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:20am
Subject: MS
    Gentlemen,
    I recently wrote to several State AG's regarding the Microsoft 
monopoly case. Several responded and asked that I write directly to 
DOJ. I am a 74 year old Consulting Civil Engineer. My first computer 
was an LGP30. When I started my own practice in 1965 I ``time 
shared'' a GE computer located at their Missile and Space Division 
at King of Prussia, PA. using a ``ground line'' and an ASR33 
Teletype. (what this proves I don't know, but I was asked by one of 
the AG's, who actually called on the telephone, that I include this 
``bio.'') I am still practicing, thanks to the PC and without the 50 
employees. I went from DOS as an operating system to OS/2 because it 
allowed me to keep the data of projects in a ``file folder'' and the 
files in each project folder were ``associated'' with the software 
with which they were created. IBM, at some time in the past, 
announced a new PC and I thought it was time to ``upgrade'' to a 
faster machine. Called IBM. Said I wanted their machine and wanted 
it with OS/2. Was told they could not sell it with OS/2, only 
window. I bought from a local PC store and installed the OS my self. 
I consider this a restraint of trade. Microsoft, at the very least, 
should be required to open their Application Program Interface to 
all so that any program written for window could be easily adapted 
to other operating systems. Thank you.
    Marcus H. Russell, P.E., L.S.
    3 Foxcroft Court
    Voorhees, NJ 08043
    856-782-0054



MTC-00010704

From: Konrad Ko(FFFF)odziejczyk


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement that Microsoft signed with DOJ and 9 states 
should be approved by court because Microsoft didn't violate Sherman 
Act. The proposal of other nine states goes for far. Microsoft legal 
tied Internet Explorer to Windows and Microsoft legal commingled 
Internet Explorer's code with operating system's code.



MTC-00010705

From: Richard Pritchett
To: Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/13/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a former user of IBM's OS/2 as my personal desktop operating 
system, I have personally seen the level to which Microsoft has 
stooped in order to kill off or severely cripple their competitors. 
As is noted in the court case's record of fact, Microsoft put undo 
pressure on IBM to get them to stop marketing and selling their 
highly acclaimed OS/2 Warp V3.0 and OS/2 2.x operating systems. OS/2 
Warp V3.0 was a product that allowed consumers to make an easy 
migration from Windows 3.x to OS/2 and still be able to use their 
old applications, but to do so on a far superior operating system. 
Because this method allowed IBM to get around one of the major 
barriers to operating system competition, i.e. applications use and 
support, OS/2 was a major threat to Microsoft, and was approaching 
the 14 million licenses sold mark (from public comments, not 
official IBM numbers). Microsoft forced IBM's hand by making them 
either stop their marketing and sales efforts or pay much greater 
prices on their OEM contracts for the purchase of Windows95. Since 
IBM is, and always will be, a hardware company first, they made the 
only business decision they could, which was to stop their OS/2 
efforts, and succumb to the pressure from Microsoft. Now I'm stuck 
using Windows due to application needs. My desire to use OS/2 
persists, but most of the software I use is either not available or 
sufficiently immature for me to use OS/2 anymore.
    While this is only one of many companies that have been hurt in 
this industry, it is clear that a competitive market for operating 
systems is the ONLY way to return the software market to a 
competitive, and innovative industry that it once was. The currently 
proposed settlement fails to address the one key area that is needed 
to do this. Microsoft's Application Programming Interfaces (API's), 
the underlying software commands that tell the operating system what 
to do, and for which programmers must use to properly program a 
Windows application, MUST be FULLY documented and open source to the 
public domain. There is no other way to get the market back on 
track. If the Windows API's are fully documented and released to the 
open public, in a very timely manner, then many programmers, who 
currently are trying to bring the ability to run Windows programs on 
various Linux distributions (WINE Project) and on IBM's OS/2 (Odin 
Project), will be able to give the Linux and OS/2 operating systems 
the ability to run Windows applications, including their Office 
suite, on both operating systems, and any other operating system 
where enough interest is present to port the applications.

[[Page 25344]]


    Also, Microsoft should be forced to divest its Office Suite 
software, as it gives them a dual monopoly which ties into each 
other and gives it a lot more power to generate new monopolies, and 
keep raising prices for new features (bug fixes). If this department 
does not wish to force a divestiture upon Microsoft, then force 
Microsoft to release the file formats into the open public so that 
other competing office suite makers (Lotus; Sun; Corel before MS 
pumped money into them) can allow their suites to use Microsoft 
Office files natively, thereby allowing consumers the choice to 
decide which office suit gets the job done better. Right now MS has 
a huge lock on this market because everyone's documents are in these 
file formats that Microsoft changes with each new release so that 
other suite makers can't keep up.
    In summary, Microsoft must be forced to open its Windows API's 
and either divest its Office suite or be forced to publicly document 
their file formats (in a timely manner for both). Combined with 
restrictions on their OEM license agreements, this should have the 
net affect of bringing competition back to the software marketplace. 
If these things are not done, then it will simply be a slap of 
Microsoft's wrist, and the marketplace will continue to loose small 
and innovative companies due to the practices of Microsoft. The list 
of greatly innovative companies that were killed off is huge. Many 
have already won court cases, or settlements, against Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Richard A. Pritchett
    Tampa, FL
    [email protected]



MTC-00010706

From: rsobba
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To whom it may concern,
    First some of my background. I have been a computer professional 
for 15 years, specializing in data base administration. My 
professional career has been mostly with mainframe data bases, but I 
have done extensive work from my home with personal computers. I 
maintain several web sites for various volunteer organizations to 
which I belong.
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by 
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big 
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign 
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department 
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's 
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case, 
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if 
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's 
Monopoly. For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the 
punishment and not the politically (and monetarily) motivated DOJ. 
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be 
REJECTED!
    I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and 
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more sense. I 
refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm
    III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM...
    Not only should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM 
pricing should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should 
be required to pay full retail price for the operating system and 
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words, 
strike paragraphs III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement. 
Furthermore, the OEM should be required to list this cost as part of 
total cost of the machine, and offer all machines they sell with 
either alternative operating systems, or no operating system at all 
installed. This would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the 
``Microsoft tax'' they are paying with each new computer system. 
Allowing users to remove items from a purchased machine is 
inadequate, as they have already payed the ``tax'' and Microsoft 
goes unpunished.
    III.D . . .Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, 
and OEMs, . . .the APIs and related Documentation. . .
    While this is a step in the right direction, Microsoft should be 
compelled to make public, not simply to certain companies but to the 
public, all operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every 
single file format, current and future, created or used by any of 
their products. The interfaces and file formats should not be 
allowed to be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow 
Microsoft to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other 
payment of monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their 
products. This will promote true competition by allowing other 
companies and the open source community to write programs that can 
be fully compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the 
Microsoft monopoly products.
    II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties . . .
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license . . . This 
paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft that will 
allow them to get away with keeping large parts of the interface to 
their systems a secret by saying that the disclosure would 
``compromise the security'' of that system. The APIs and file 
formats I mentioned above should be excluded from this paragraph.
    Section V. Termination
    B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found 
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time 
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with 
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
    So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft 
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their 
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an 
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section 
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This 
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails to 
comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not in 
compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be an 
incentive for compliance!
    In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted 
monopolist should include the opening and documenting of all 
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the 
documented specification of all file formats for documents created 
by their products should be public domain, and the complete 
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently 
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes 
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be 
severe.
    A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in 
the national interest and national security. A study released a year 
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually 
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to 
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as 
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is 
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and 
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software 
marketplace be implemented.
    Thanks you for your time,
    Rick Sobba
    Prairie Village, KS.



MTC-00010707

From: Lynn and Ms Leanne Sant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynn and Ms Leanne Sant
P.O. Box 329
Preston, ID 83263-0329
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25345]]


    Lynn and Leanne Sant



MTC-00010708

From: Dave Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been involved in developing computer software for 25 
years. I have watched Microsoft's behavior since the very first PCs. 
I currently own a computer company that focuses on the development 
of Java software for the healthcare market, with a particular 
emphasis on the Medicaid sector. I would like to make the following 
points.
    1. In my opinion Microsoft has a tendency to sit back and let 
the venture community, and entrepenures invest many millions of 
dollars with early stage technologies. Once the economic viability 
of these products has been established, Microsoft steps in with a 
free, bundled or tightly integrated product that destroys the 
competition. Once there is no more competition they begin to charge 
what the market will bear for the bundled solution.
    2. At the heart of the problem is the fact that Microsoft is 
using it's base level software first DOS, then Windows, Windows 
applications, Browsers to insure that the entire industry propagates 
their initiative. If a group develops software that is truly 
innovative, then Microsoft will buy it or build a clone that is 
offered as a part of the windows initiative. Any settlement that 
allows Microsoft to pay compensation by giving away software, which 
will further their ambitions to educate the world that Microsoft 
products are the only answer, is counter productive. Having 
Microsoft purchase and distribute computer hardware from a variety 
of manufactures seems appropriate. This Hardware should be pre 
loaded with some of the software that has been injured by the 
Microsoft practices. The latest version of Java and one or more of 
the excellent development environments for Java should be pre loaded 
to the exclusion of Microsoft development software. The Latest 
version of Netscape's browser should be pre loaded instead of IE. 
Initiatives such as these would be much more consistent with with a 
resolution to the problem.
    3. I believe that Microsoft should be forced to distribute a 
version of Java that's meets the current Java specification with any 
operation system that Microsoft ships, including Windows CE. The 
problem with Java is a distribution problem. Insuring the 
availability of an alternative to consumers and the ability for 
developers to assume that a current Java application will run on a 
consumer device is a huge step towards opening competition.
    4. My organization often responds to local, State and Federal 
RFPs. All too often these RFDs specify that only Microsoft solutions 
will be accepted. I do not believe that it is the job of our 
government to promote Microsoft products in any way. The government 
should be specifying software that is compliant with recognized 
standards organizations and requesting features that are relevant to 
the tasks associated with the procurement.
    Regards
    David P. Walsh
    President
    eServices Group



MTC-00010709

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Friends, I believe that it would be in the best interest of 
the country (even if it weren't in the grip of recession,) to settle 
the Microsoft case quickly and fairly. I think it was a bad decision 
to reject the generous offer Microsoft made. Please, please, for the 
benefit of us all, end this unnecessary case and the waste of the 
government's money. When you look at the outrageous Enron case which 
also will cost much of the public's precious money, (this is not a 
waste,) the Microsoft's offenses disappear.
    Mary Daley,
    11811 E Terra Drive,
    Scottsdale, AZ 85259 (480) 391-1817



MTC-00010710

From: R Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my opinion regarding the recent 
settlement in the Microsoft Anti -Trust case. First of all, this 
whole case was ridiculous and is clearly an attempt on the part of 
some of the Microsoft competitors to invalidate the competitive 
advantages of Microsoft and steal their intellectual property. The 
government has been erroneously dragged in to a technical discussion 
it does not have the ability to moderate nor does it have any 
business intervening in the affairs of a private company. However, 
what's done is done and this settlement should be the final end to 
this mess. Spending more time further evaluating the details of the 
settlement is a waste of money. The most recent judicial decision 
just complicates and extends the whole silly case. With the existing 
recession and our newly rediscovered partisan politics our economy 
can't stand to have our IT industry continue to be burdened in this 
manner.
    I am currently retired, but was involved in the computer 
industry for nearly 30 years, the last 15 of which were as a CEO of 
a public computer company. I was closely involved with Microsoft 
products and still use them for my daily computer use. Given our 
free enterprise system, I am free to use whichever products I see 
fit, and nothing Microsoft has done precludes me from using whatever 
software and hardware I choose to use. Like thousands of other 
Americans, I use Microsoft because it is easy to use, and more 
importantly it provides a standard which encourages the rest of the 
industry to provide compatible products. It is my belief it is these 
standards issues that have allowed us to become the premier technical 
and business country on the planet. The settlement will make it even 
easier for non-Microsoft products to be used on people's computers. 
Additionally, Microsoft will be handing over their coding and 
interface design (Which is intellectual property) to help their 
competitors compete more fairly(Unfairly??) in the market. I don't 
see what more could be asked of Microsoft. Please make sure this 
settlement is respected and that this lawsuit is put to an end.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Carlson



MTC-00010711

From: Phil Patterson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Patterson
6300 Welles Brook
San Antonio, TX 78240
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:


[[Page 25346]]

    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Phil E. Patterson



MTC-00010712

From: Bernadette Hein
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernadette Hein
72 Cambridge Dr.
Hershey, PA 17033
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bernadette Hein



MTC-00010713

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Go ahead and settle.
    Brian Boyd



MTC-00010714

From: Jens Bj(FFFF)rlo Tandstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against Microsoft is clearly that of a Monopoly 
exploiting markets and manipulating consumer patterns of purchase. 
Moreover, the delay and discrimination as to when and to what degree 
information is disclosed to third party software developers not 
member of the Microsoft Software production family. The effects of 
this monopoly includes, but are not limited to:
--Lack of freedom when purchasing software goods.
--Lower quality of products not a part of or cooperating with 
Microsoft.
--The hardware industry favouring Microsoft because of it's market 
position, tailoring hardware to the Windows OS, and thus strengtens 
their position further, hindering competition.
--Security issues due to recurring exploits and weak spots in the 
Windows system. This is an effect much affected by the Microsoft 
strategy to include all types of programs in the OS, thus removing 
the convenience and often possibilty of not using a program in which 
there is a considerable security hazard. (Internet Explorer, Instant 
Messaging, Microsoft Network protocols)
--Deliberate neglecting file formats to create inconvinence so that 
people stop using competing programs.
    You all know this, make the right decision. Let us have the 
benefits of a free market.
    Jens Tandstad
    NORWAY



MTC-00010715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:21pm
Subject: Settlement Microsoft
    I am against the proposed settlement in US vs. Microsoft. You 
should stop criminal behaviour by all means. You should never reward 
criminal monopolitic activities with a higher market penetration.
    I think that if a small company had the behaviour of MS, the 
management would be punished with sending to prison. Why don't you 
do that with the MS management?
    May be you can punish the MS management with the obligation of 
developing each application for multiplatform? (f.i. Apple and 
Linux) Then you can minimalise the effects of the present 
monopolism. And all users would benefit with a higher degree of 
freedom.



MTC-00010716

From: Charlie Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I applaud the DOJ for finally settling the suit with Microsoft. 
It is good that the federal government is moving forward to items of 
far greater importance and not wasting any more taxpayer dollars on 
an issue it shouldn't have even looked at in the first place. In my 
humble opinion, this suit did nothing to benefit consumers; it was 
filed purely at the behest of companies who failed in the 
marketplace because of their own ineptitude, and the fire was fanned 
by a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawers whose egos and arrogance far 
supersede any other interest.
    Charles S. Parker



MTC-00010717

From: Randy Hartley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Opinion
    Competition is what is needed to ensure a good product. Without 
competition, there is no reason to make a better product or for that 
matter make the existing product better.
    It is for that reason I am opposed to a settlement with 
Microsoft
    Thank You
    Randy Hartley



MTC-00010718

From: M. Hermann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M. Hermann
14359 SE 6TH ST, Apt 204
Bellevue, WA 98007-6733
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Martel C Hermann



MTC-00010719

From: George Keselman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Technical Reviewer Board proposed is useless. Those 3 
persons will have no effective rights, and will be manipulated by 
Microsoft during 1 month each serves. One of two Board members is to 
be assigned by Microsoft, and the third one is also to be elected by 
that Microsoft assigned person. What a brilliant idea!
    The Microsoft phenomenon can be viewed as promoting public 
computing ignorance through not educating and limiting choices. It 
is easy due to human nature. That's why it succeeded in the game. 
The document should forbid Microsoft promote its system in public 
schools without teaching equal or more time Linux or Unix systems. 
It is easy, too, but there is a powerful lobby in the US government 
that promotes Microsoft only. This is the primary reason the 
situation persists.
    George Kesleman
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00010720

From: Jim A Goluch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft--DOJ
2011 ``I'' St.,
Laporte, IN 46350- 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the recent settlement 
between Microsoft and the US department of Justice. I think the 
settlement is ion the best interest of the American public because 
it forces Microsoft to make some concessions that will even the 

[[Page 25347]]


playing field, but it also allows Microsoft to get this suit off its 
chest and continue to innovate as it has for over a decade.
    Microsoft has really standardized the industry and its products, 
services, and training are really outstanding. As a computer analyst 
I would say though that I believe their marketing tactics are a 
little heavy handed, so the fact that Microsoft will be increasing 
its relations with software developers and computer makers as well 
as agreeing to design future versions of Windows to make it easier 
for competitors to market their products within Windows.
    Since the settlement does seem fair and just, I urge your office 
to finalize it, and help facilitate ending the nine remaining states 
opposition. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    James Goluch



MTC-00010721

From: limoman 2929
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please See Attachment



MTC-00010722

From: S I
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:28pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dearest Judge K;
    Please take a careful look at the Proposed Final Judgement that 
the Dept of Justice is trying to foist upon the American people. It 
is an outrage that Microsoft--after having been found guilty time 
after time in American courts--is about to be let off basically 
scott free. Why should the strongest and wealthiest Americans get 
off from obeying the law?
    I have been in the software industry for almost 10 years--and I 
have personally seen Microsoft rip off ideas, patents, products and 
even entire companies. Repeatedly. But this is no different then 
what the courts have found. I know run a small company--and we have 
to tiptoe around MS all the time--as do all software companies our 
size.
    Please protect small, independant software developers like 
myself. That's the great thing about our country--the rich and 
powerful don't always win. thank you very much.
    Sasha Winston
    Menlo Park, CA



MTC-00010723

From: Jane Waski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
420 East 64 Street
New York, New York 10021
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak on behalf of ordinary consumers. Companies like Microsoft 
don't become powerful because of competitors, but because of people 
like me who purchase and use their products. I am an avid user of 
Microsoft software, and feel that they have been unfairly singled 
out. Nevertheless, I also believe that the current settlement 
satisfies the government and public interest in a way that should 
allow this suit to end. I feel that the three-year lawsuit and the 
efforts of the negotiations have culminated in a settlement that is 
both fair and reasonable.
    While new government regulations will be imposed on Microsoft's 
business and technology practices, this settlement will provide 
certainty about the new rules and thereby ensure that the company 
can continue delivering advanced American technology to the 
marketplace. I also believe that this case has had a direct impact 
on the federal and state economies. During this difficult time, it 
doesn't make sense to spend more money on a battle that has already 
been won. Under the agreement, competitors can sue Microsoft if they 
feel that the company is not complying with the terms of the 
settlement, and Microsoft can continue innovating in an effort to 
maintain its competitive advantage. In short, I think that the 
necessary corrections have been made to solve the problems, and now 
it is time to return focus from litigation back to innovation. The 
settlement agreement is the first step in the right direction.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Waski



MTC-00010724

From: Matthew Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:56pm
Subject: Comments on the settlement between the USDOJ and Microsoft
    I am writing to you to state my disappointment at the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft in the antitrust case. I cannot see anyway 
that this settlement punishes the convicted corporate felon 
Microsoft, improves competition or helps the consumer. I work in 
computer industry, although not with a competitor of Microsoft. 
However I work on an embedded Internet browser. Because Microsoft 
Internet Explorer is so pervasive (a monopoly) and because it has 
undocumented extensions it is virtually impossible to produce a 
browser that can compete. While it might appear that web browser 
technologies such as HTML and HTTP are standards the reality is that 
they are so inadequate and incomplete (and ignored) that the only 
way to be assured that the page ``renders correctly'' is to try to 
guess at what IE does. This forces all competition to chase IE. 
There is no standard for validating HTML therefore the de-facto 
validation is ``looks good in IE.'' This is only one example of the 
problems with Microsoft's monopoly.
    I believe that the remedy suggested by judge Jackson makes far 
more sense than the current proposed settlement. Furthermore some of 
the parts of proposed settlement will only reenforce Microsoft's 
monopoly, especially the part about donating software. I suggest the 
eventual punishment for Microsoft include:
    1. Breaking up Microsoft into three separate competing 
companies. One for operating systems, another for applications and a 
third for online services such as MSN, Passport, Hotmail etc.
    2. Microsoft should be fined billions of dollars for monopoly 
behavior and producing bug ridden security inept software.
    3. PC manufacturers should be forced to provide users with an 
alterative for pre-installed operating systems. For example, 
customers should be able to request that Linux is pre-installed.
    4. Microsoft operating systems should be required to ship with 
the latest version of the Java runtime environment from Sun 
Microsystems.
    The current settlement does nothing to benefit this country, the 
computer industry or consumers. Therefore I urge you to discard it. 
I also urge you to take the hardest line in punishing Microsoft to 
the maximum possible.
    I would be happy to provide additional information if required.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Jones
    12918 View Mesa Street
    Moorpark, California 93021
    Telephone: (805) 531-0474
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00010725

From: Rick Creson
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/13/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
    This entire case needs to be dismissed. Anti Trust made no sense 
in the beginning and makes no sense now. The people who have made 
the most noise abut this case and have prompted the government to 
pursue action against Microsoft are the people who want any and all 
competition to go away, specifically Larry Ellison of Oracle, Scott 
McNeely of Sun and those in charge of Netscape. Microsoft may have 
gone beyond the acceptable to ``compete'', however, the Government 
has gone beyond sanity in its contention that competition is not 
acceptable to Microsoft. Regarding operating systems, I believe that 
everyone who pays attention, knows that a myriad of operating 
systems will never occur. Effectively, Industry has determined that 
there are three effective operating systems with which they will 
participate: 1) IBM and their Mainframe environment, which serves 
large scale systems, 2) The UNIX environment that serves mid-size 
and client server systems, and 3) Windows, which serves the desktop 
and acts as the clients to the client-server environment.
    If a company was to create the next ``better'' operating system, 
one of the three above would disappear, just as Digital's VM 
Operating system dissipated and then disappeared with the growth of 
UNIX and Windows. By the way, the demise of Digital, created the 
birth of Oracle and SUN. You did not hear Ellison and McNeely 
complain about that one.
    Lastly, Apple Computer has been around for years. They have been 
unsuccessful, not because of Microsoft but because of their 
inability to serve the business marketplace and because the business 
marketplace saw no room for them.
    Please stop this nonsense against Microsoft and move on.
    Rick Creson


[[Page 25348]]

    [email protected]
    Meridian Technology Group, Inc.
    4949 SW. Meadows Road #440
    Lake Oswego, OR 97035
    503-697-1600 In Oregon
    800-755-1038 Outside Oregon
    503-697-8600 Fax
    www.meridiangroup.com



MTC-00010726

From: Elaine Cohen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Court of Appeals settlement is fair & just. As a 
WEB TV Grandfather & GRANDMOTHER Microsoft ha added so much to our 
lives from letters to & from our Children & Grandchildren to 
pictures of our Greatgrandaughters--also activities we never thought 
we could do on the Web. We live in a retirement village & we all are 
greatful to Microsoft for all their efforts in our behalf.Please 
settle the case in Microsoft's FAVOR!!!
    Sincerely
    Elaine E, & Simon Cohen



MTC-00010727

From: david snyder
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Snyder
700 Anne Ln.
Henderson, NV 89015
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David L. Snyder



MTC-00010728

From: David Thieme
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I sent the attached letter to Att Gen Ashcroft & Senator Rick 
Santorum.
David C. Thieme
27 Pine Free Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-5568
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to encourage you to finalize the Microsoft 
settlement. The Justice Departments pursuit of Microsoft has cast a 
dark cloud over the information technology industry for more than 
three years. I work for Ciber and our business has slowed down 
drastically due to the unknown future of Microsoft. Companies are 
afraid to move forward, new technology is not being used, all 
because Microsoft's future is unknown. I for one blame the Federal 
Government for the current recession. This blatant attack on 
corporate America is, in my opinion based solely on jealous envoy of 
their success. America no longer has a free market system. By 
interfering with Microsoft our government has impacted our economic 
system in ways that will take longer to repair than it did to 
inflict such harm. The current proposed settlement will at least 
allow Microsoft to refocus its energies in the American arena where 
it is sorely needed. Yes, Microsoft is the Giant in the market, but 
they got there by a vision of the future. A future no other company 
saw. So why do we punish them for making our future what it is? This 
action has not only impacted Microsoft but the whole Information 
Technology community. Many have new innovative ideas but are afraid 
to act on them for fear of winding up like Microsoft.
    As a born again Christian, I was so pleased to see that someone 
in Washington was not afraid to stand up and acknowledge his 
beliefs. I felt assured that you would be able to evaluate our laws 
with the insight and beliefs our founding fathers based this country 
upon. You understand the importance of our freedoms and the reasons 
why a Free Market is so successful. The tyranny of government must 
be returned to a government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people. Mr. Ashcroft, it is time to allow innovation to continue 
in America.
    While I fear that this settlement will still continue to snuff 
out the brightness of our potential technological future, I think it 
is far better that the past six years have been. The settlement as 
proposed looks like it will satisfy the prosecutions arguments. It 
also looks like it will please most of Microsoft's competitors, 
except the ones who would not be satisfied until Microsoft was no 
longer in business. The settlement forces Microsoft to share its 
technological break-throughs with its competition, and open the 
Windows Operating system source code. 
It also compels them to stop allegedly anticompetitive practices. 
All monitored by an oversight committee chosen by the Justice 
Department and the Microsoft's competitors. I believe sufficient 
concessions have been made. Most importantly from my view Microsoft 
will remain a sole corporate entity enabling it to continue to push 
American Technology into the future we deserve. The economy needs a 
Microsoft, as does the Information Technology industry and most 
importantly America needs Microsoft back in the game. Please support 
this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Thieme
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00010729

From: Bob Kaufman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  2:29pm
Subject: antitrust
    Dept of Justice,
    The remedies proposed for Microsoft's proven monopolistic and 
anti competitive behavior are entirely too weak. Look to history as 
a guide for the proper appropriate response to a trust or monopoly. 
Have you no spines? These remedies don't even amount to a slap on 
the hands. Look up what the remedies were for Standard Oil and AT&T 
after they were proven as monopolists in court. Like Microsoft (MS), 
they were rich, fought long and hard in court, but were rightly 
found to be illegal corporations. They were broken up to preserve 
competition and stop the monopolistic behavior--and their ill-gotten 
cash gains were removed. All of these steps are crucial.
    First, you must remedy the monopoly itself, in this case the 
suggested solution amounts to the same one used during previous 
failed attempts to oversee company behavior. Two consent decrees 
were levied--neither one worked--Microsoft continued (and continues) 
to tie new features into their operating system at the expense of 
competitors and consumers. It is time to split Microsoft's OS from 
direct company control into a new company. Anything less will lead 
to the same monopolistic behavior that we have seen before and 
continue to see with the release of Window's XP. MS, with the rushed 
release of XP, attempts to harm RealAudio by grafting the weak MS 
streaming media stand alone programs to the pre installed OS that 
comes on new computers. Thereby foisting one more inferior MS 
product onto the consumer who wants to buy a new computer but not 
the MS media players. In the process RealAudio, the key innovator, 
and maker of the number one media player is hurt--much like what was 
done supplant the previous number one browser Netscape with inferior 
new number one MS Explorer. You are fooling yourselves if you think 
this will change with the current remedy.
    Second, you do not let the monopolist use the gains from 
previous monopolistic behavior to then buy into other industries and 
continue to profit from the past monopoly. In this, the current 
remedy is completely lacking. In effect what the latest settlement 
does is to let MS sit on it's multibillion dollar war chest stolen 
using the Window's OS monopoly. MS continues to use that cash to buy 
out promising companies with competing, threatening technologies to 
protect MS's inferior products. This harms consumers and puts a 


[[Page 25349]]

chill on innovation and leaves MS free to continue to stifle 
competition. Make an accurate study of the estimated gains from the 
demonstrated monopoly and remove that cash from MS and return it to 
consumers. And we are talking billions here not some bargained down 
fine that is politically palatable.
    MS's influence on the peoples elected officials ranges far and 
wide, but don't doubt for a second that the people will remember 
those in government that let the worst monopolist of our times off 
virtually scot-free. . . .again.
    Bob Kaufman
    Bellevue WA



MTC-00010730

From: SSteele
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  2:48pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft case
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    Stephen D. Steele
    Cortex Medical Management Systems, Inc.
    600 Ericksen Avenue NE, Suite 320
    Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010731

From: William B. Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Deparment:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft makes it seem as if it is 
a company that is only cocerned about innovation and fair minded 
capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Microsoft is a government backed monopoly used to provide a 
uniform computing platformto simplify subjugation of the citizens. 
Breaking up Microsoft is the logical solution. I do not expect it 
because government prosecution of Microsoft is a sham to pay lip 
service to those who rightly fear fascism.
    If there are those in the U.S. Justice Department who admire 
Teddy Roosevelt (``The Trust Buster''), then perhaps a break-up of 
Microsoft can be hoped for. Please attempt it.


    Sincerely,
    William Moore
    1215 Oxley Road
    Columbus, Ohio



MTC-00010732

From: Frederic Marchand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I think that there is an urgent need to open the PC OS market to 
other solutions than Microsoft. A statu quo at this time will only 
strangle the market.
    If you want to have an idea, go to your local PC store and ask 
for a PC without Microsoft's OS (an empty PC). You'll see. . .
    One action which should be taken is to force Microsoft to have 
the acknowledgement of the court for all their OEM contracts in 
order for the court to prevent any monopolisitic usage.
    I am a BeOS user and I am sure that BeOS development has been 
put on hold by Microsoft influence or pressure and/or contracts. the 
result is the bankrupcy for a company which tried to be 
``innovative'', something Microsoft pretended to protect. . .
    Frederic Marchand
    Paris, France



MTC-00010733

From: Craig Hillemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Persuant to provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to 
express my opinion on the settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice in November of last year. Apparently nine 
states are seeking to further prosecute the Microsoft Corporation. 
As both a taxpayer and purchaser of personal computer software 
products, I do not believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft 
should be dragged out any longer.
    Please be reminded that the purpose of antitrust laws in the 
United States is to protect consumers like me, and not to support 
the self-interests of competitors in the marketplace. The parties 
that goaded the DOJ and states to file antitrust actions were 
Microsoft's competitors, not consumers like me. Microsoft's 
competitors are obviously envious of Microsoft's success, but the 
reason Microsoft has succeeded is simply that Microsoft has 
consistently delivered better and more cost-effective products, and 
furthermore fostered a large market and environment inviting 
competition. As result, enormously more quality, low-cost hardware 
and software is available from both Microsoft and other vendors for 
Windows than for any other operating system (e.g, Linux, MacOS, 
Solaris, etc.).
    Microsoft's Windows product provides excellent functionality for 
the price. As a consumer, I want Microsoft to bundle as many applets 
as possible in Windows, and I do not appreciate hardware vendors 
modifying Windows. My computer-using colleagues feel similarly. 
Windows as provided by Microsoft works well on a remarkably wide 
range of computer hardware. The applets included in Windows provide 
very helpful functionality with dependable stability and user 
interface 


[[Page 25350]]

consistency. Their inclusion does not prevent other 
vendors from developing products with greater functionality, but 
does provide a useful standard for other vendors to try to surpass.
    I have read the entire Appellate Decision for this case, and 
based on the facts, including my own experience as a computer user, 
I do not believe bundling Internet Explorer in Windows was unlawful. 
Frankly, I appreciate the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows. 
Microsoft's alleged misrepresentation of Java support may have been 
questionable, but the context was a struggle with Sun, one of 
Microsoft's biggest detractors, for control of the language. 
Microsoft has since pulled back support for Java in Internet 
Explorer. Anyway, the proposed settlement goes well beyond any 
reasonable remedy in view of Microsoft's possible misstep. Under the 
circumstances, the agreement made between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice was certainly more than fair. All parties 
directly involved (not counting Microsoft's competitors) seem 
satisfied with the terms reached. Microsoft has agreed to license 
its software and applicable intellectual property rights to its 
major competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is planning to format future 
versions of Windows so that its competitors will be able to 
introduce and endorse non-Microsoft software in Windows. Microsoft 
has also agreed to disclose Windows line code to competing computer 
software producers. However, I personally will want the full version 
of Windows from Microsoft without it being hacked by other vendors.
    I do not believe litigation should continue in this case. There 
is no need to drag the suit out any longer. You and you office 
should back the settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Craig L. Hillemann
    1229 Crestover Road
    Wilmington, DE 19803
    302-479-0432
    [email protected]



MTC
-00010734

From: Brooks, Rama
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/13/02  3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft needs to slow down
    To Whom It May Concern,
    My name is Rama K. Brooks and I am a CompTIA A+ Certified 
Computer Technician working for the State of Indiana/Dept of 
Administration/Division of Information Technology. We are still in 
the middle of upgrading the state's infrastructure with Windows 2000 
from Windows NT 4.0 and now XP and the .Net servers are coming out. 
If Microsoft took more time in developing newer versions of Windows 
then we wouldn't have to deal with all these security issues and 
bugs. Not only that but the Enterprise Agreement we have with them 
allows us x amount of licenses for desktops, servers, and apps. 
Because of budget constraints we can't get all the state agencies 
upgraded to Windows 2000. And now we have agencies that want to 
purchase XP. I am feeling that we are being pushed for forced 
upgrades. Upgrading any part of the IT infrastructure should be done 
because it is technically a sound idea for the organization, not 
because a software company wants to force it down our throats.
    I started out wanting to become an MCSE (Microsoft Certified 
Systems Engineer) around 1995. I started to study on my for the 
Windows NT 4.0 track and then found out it was going to be replaced 
with the 2000 track. I have been working for the State of Indiana 
since April 16, 2001 and that is when I started to get the hands on 
experience for Windows 2000. Now the XP track is coming out. Before 
you needed at least 2 years experience with the software to pass the 
test. But with XP, the test it came out the same time as the 
product. I have invested over $500 in study guides for the 2000 
track. Stop the insanity might be a better term. I feel as a IT 
professional that because of their greed, Microsoft is going to kill 
the MCSE credential and the best part is that the Dept of Justice 
doesn't need to do anything for that to happen. Employers are going 
to realize that the only way for people to be certified in Windows 
XP (before this track expires) and not have the 2 years experience 
with the product is going to mean that they are more likely a 
``paper MCSE''. Unless it is someone upgrading from the NT 4.0 track 
or Windows 2000 because they have the base knowledge and experience. 
All they need to do is learn what's new with the XP track.
    I find the idea of XP sending information to Microsoft's website 
from the user's PC rather disturbing and unethical. This presents a 
rather significant security risk for criminal hackers (crackers) and 
cyber-terrorists to break into a network. How safe would you feel to 
know if the FBI had deployed XP on all their special agents 
desktops? I would say that in some instances this could pose a 
national security risk (it all depends on who is using XP and how 
critical their data is kept).
    Perhaps a fair solution would be to have Microsoft give those 
schools money instead of Microsoft products. Breaking up Microsoft 
would be bad because then they could spread out to all the areas 
that this lawsuit is trying to stop them from doing. And if Linux 
takes over more and more desktops then don't be surprised Microsoft 
porting Office to Linux. They will soon learn the lesson that IBM 
has just learned (on there own) that you can't be everything to 
everyone and dominate it all. IBM has regrouped on what it want s to 
focus on, and that will be the same fate Microsoft will soon suffer.
    In their defense Microsoft is a publishing company. It would be 
like saying that McGraw-Hill has unfair advantage on school text 
book market. AOL which holds the monopoly on Internet Services 
Providers had merged with Time Warner to become the ``monopoly'' for 
media. But many upstart Internet Service Providers are popping up 
and thriving. Why? Because of customer focus and satisfaction. When 
companies get too big, they stop caring for their 
customers. That is when they 
start loosing business. A case in point would be the phone company 
or McDonalds. Both have given me (as well other people I know) lousy 
services, but they make enough that they don't care. You go to a 
family own dinner and usually you get the best service. If you want 
proof that pertains to this case, then look at LINUX. It was created 
around 1992 by a college student in Finland. He then cut it loose, 
source code and all to the open source community. He still controls 
the final say about changing the kernel (the heart of the operating 
system), and there are companies making money of distributing it, as 
well as writing programs for it. The result, it is being ported to 
watches, radios, PDAs, cars, robots, and any electronic device you 
can think of as well as any kind of CPU architecture. Basically 
Linux went in 10 years from a ``radical underground movement'' to a 
business quality type of Operating Systems that Microsoft has 
identified as it's main threat. Linux has accomplish everything that 
Microsoft wanted Windows to accomplish or Scott McNealy (Sun 
Microsystems) wanted Java to accomplish. Where did these companies 
go wrong? It is because they tried to dominate the market and 
control their standards while making a hefty profit. Most of Linux's 
migrations to different electronic devices you can download the 
source code free and compile it or pay for a packaged CD.
    Linux also has several different professional certifications. 
And with CompTIA creating a Linux+ certification shows more proof 
how Linux is business accepted Operating Systems.
    Don't split Microsoft up, because that will create a different 
Microsoft company for each area they are trying to monopolize. 
Instead let them grow and become more bloated. Their greed will be 
their downfall. In the early 1980's IBM wanted to enter the PC 
market, and Texas Instrument (who dominated that market) had pulled 
it's TI-99/4A off the market. IBM asked CP/M (the dominant company 
for operating systems) to create an operating systems for their PC. 
When CP/M told them no, a little upstart company called Microsoft 
offered to do it. Now it seems that things are coming full circle 
because Microsoft is where CP/M was 20 years ago. And Linux is where 
Microsoft was 20 years ago, except Linux is more user driven versus 
company driven.
    Just fine Microsoft a multi-billion dollar fine and end this 
whole trial. I would also suggest that you take on AOL/Time-Warner 
as the new monopolistic threat.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Rama K. Brooks, A+
    Systems Analyst
    State of Indiana
    Department of Administration
    Division of Information Technology
    Indiana Government Center North
    100 Senate Ave., Room N551
    Indianapolis, IN 46204
    (317) 232-1052--Office phone
    (317) 232-0748--Fax
    CC:Zust, Brian



MTC-00010735

From: Guoliang Qian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Hi,
    This is Guoliang Qian, a Ph. D. in Computer Science from CUNY 
Graduate School.


[[Page 25351]]

    What I would like to see: 1. Microsoft will document OS features 
and APIs in a complete and timely fashion. 2. Seperate from 
Microsoft OS development and application program development 
businesses.
    What I would NOT like to see: Force Microsoft to open the source 
of its Windows operating system.
    Justification for the above: To promote innovation and fair 
competion.
    Thank you!
    Guoliang



MTC-00010736

From: Sally Ciarlo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please stop wasting tax dollars and time persuing this case. 
Microsoft has done more for the taxpayers of this country than all 
of you down in Washington put together.



MTC-00010737

From: Charles A Sellon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft settlement



MTC-00010738

From: Lisa Starbuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not agree to this settlement. Microsoft has shown 
again and again that they will not play by the rules, and this 
settlement does not go far enough to ensure a level playing field. 
In particular, my concern is for the lack of limitations on what 
Microsoft can include in their ``operating system''. They have 
already killed off several companies by copying their concept and 
integrating it into their system in such a way that few companies 
can compete. The long this goes on, the worse it will get.
    Thanks for your time and attention to this matter.
    Lisa Starbuck



MTC-00010739

From: donald j annis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a retired IBM employee. While working in a division 
principally involved with department of defence contracts, I watched 
the justice department distract and stifle IBM's business activities 
for the better part of 10 years only to have the case closed with no 
significant conclusion.
    Much the same can be said for the Microsoft situation. It is 
time to bring this case to a speedy end. This case likewise is an 
unnecessary burden to Microsoft, the economy and the justice 
department.
    Regards,
    Donajd J Annis
    22 Holiday Hill Road
    Endicott, NY 13760



MTC-00010740

From: Gary Cauchi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle this lawsuit.
    Gary Cauchi
    5935 East McKenzie Avenue
    Fresno, California 93727



MTC-00010741

From: Jeffrey Burger
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffrey Burger
1927 Stonemanor Drive
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey L. Burger



MTC-00010742

From: Jonathan Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does not stop Microsoft from operating as a 
monopoly. It does not force Microsoft to substansively alter its 
structure and marketing plans. The inability of the settlement to 
force Microsoft to change its business scructure makes the 
settlement pointless. Second, the settlement does not punish 
Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the past. It 
would set a terrible standard if Microsoft was allowed to get away 
with its monopolistic and abusive tactics. Finally, the PFJ does 
not provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak 
restrictions it does implement.  All in all, the settlement between 
Microsoft and the Justice Department is weak and does not fix the 
basic problems the suit was brought to correct. I urge you to do 
everything in your power to overturn the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Hill
    Brighton, Massachusetts



MTC-00010743

From: csaxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading the final judgement I would like to point out a 
number of points that are apparently not pin pointed in the 
document. What is Microsoft in the business of providing? This may 
sound like a stupid question so I will explain in the following 
paragraphs.
    1. Before you begin to sell software you need a market to sell 
the software to... Microsoft has saturated the user market with 
their operating system...business users as well as home users.
    2. You need to make sure that you can compete in this market, to 
be able to write good quality software. Because Microsoft owns the 
operating system that most home and business software is hosted on 
it already has an unfair advantage since they will know and already 
have teams of programmers who have inside information on how to 
program certain API's. In fact it is not uncommon for Microsoft to 
add the functionality to the operating system and then add user 
applications that use that functionality to be released at the same 
time. This leaves everyone in the world playing catch-up every time.
    3. Trust... I work for a software house who developed 
manufacturing software for the Microsoft platform and spent millions 
of pounds in R&D to only find out that 3 and a half years down the 
line Microsoft bought one of our competitors and now develops 
software with them. This left us competing and relying on a 
competitor?? Their in house software products all lie in the 
following fields
    Games
    Word processing
    Accounting
    Manufacturing
    Banking
    Numerous in house business products...
    THEY DON'T WORK WITH PARTNERS SO THEY OWN THE OPERATING SYSTEM 
AND THE BUSINESS SYSTEMS??
    Would splitting the company into distinct smaller companies be a 
bad thing...?
    There are a number of other worring points in the document.
    1. After they nearly destroyed all competition in the internet 
market with internet explorer, why have they not been punished?? 
Final Judgement should include some sort of punishment so that they 
know not do it again...
    2. The document does not detail and nail down when competitors 
software becomes suitable for replaceing the Microsoft equivalent.
    3. Any code to do with the operating system could be deemed 
important to the security of the operating system...It would be 

[[Page 25352]]

very easy for MS to keep any code they wish away from the eyes of 
the TC.    4. The TC seem to be another piece in the RED tape if 
they have no power to testify in court.
    ....Point 4.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 Judgement. Would this mean that if I went to them with a 
complaint about Microsoft practises that I could then not proceed 
with the complaint to the courts? I am not sure since the final 
judgement does not nail this down...It is very wide open to abuse...
    Information is the new monetary system and at the moment 
Microsoft is holding a very large piece of this currency?



MTC-00010744

From: Henry S. Williams
To: John Ashcroft,Microsoft Microsoft
Date: 1/13/02  4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept the proposed Microsoft anti-trust suite 
settlement. Please see my attached letter.
    Thank You
    Henry S. Williams
    1304 Adams Ave.
    Toppenish, WA 98948



MTC-00010744-0001

    Henry S. Williams
    1304 Adams Ave.
    Toppenish, WA 98948
    E-Mail: stein [email protected]
    Phone: 509-865-2915
    January 13, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regard to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. As a user of Microsoft products I have 
found their products to be of high quality and value priced. 
Consumer complaints with Microsoft are few; unfortunately competitor 
complaints have driven this ``anti-trust'' matter. As a resident of 
Washington State, as well as a stock holder, let me tell you this 
unreasonable litigation has cost our State millions of dollars and 
my wife and I thousands of dollars. I believe the proposed 
settlement is more than fair. I urge you to accept this settlement 
and put an end to this long drawn out litigation.
    The proposed settlement requires Microsoft to make serious 
concessions to its competitors as Windows systems will have to be 
made to accept non-Windows software. If fact a government appointed 
oversight committee would now monitor Microsoft's business practices 
and insure it abide by the settlement terms. Clearly this settlement 
is more than just a slap on Microsoft's wrist. The terms should be 
more than enough to appease the harshest critics of Microsoft, and 
it will certainly increase competition in the technology 
marketplace. At this time of National economic uncertainty we need 
this great corporation at work. Please support this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Henry S. Williams



MTC-00010744--0002



MTC-00010746

From: Shuryl A Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice;
    I watch our great country being eaten up by corporations such as 
Philip Morris, News media giants, and several other powerful 
corporations and the justice system seems to turn their heads. We 
can't help but wonder when a company as great as Microsoft, which 
has created enormous opportunities and wealth for the American 
people and the world, Contributes billions of dollars to some of the 
poorest nations in the world, is always brought to task. Is it 
because our government and justice system is being control by 
corporations more powerful then themselves? My family and many 
friends are quite happy with Microsoft and their way of doing 
business. We will always support and buy their products no matter 
how hard their competitor's try to destroy them. We beg you to 
search your conscience and not bend to giant corporate pressures.
    Sincerely;
    Shuryl A Potter



MTC-00010747

From: Dave fenton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    For the life of me i cannot understand why you wish to punish a 
company that has been on the cutting edge of technology, has not 
hurt consumers one bit spends billions on research and development, 
gives more money away to charities than any other company, and still 
you want more. These other states and companies just have sour 
grapes and you are playing right into their hands.
    A VERY SATISIFED MICROSOFT CUSTOMER
    Dave Fenton



MTC-00010748

From: George McLennon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    George McLennon
    458 Rice Circle
    Enterprise, Alabama 36330
    January 13, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am deeply concerned over further inquiry into the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I thought this issue had finally been resolved. 
This period of public comment is important so that the Justice 
Department be advised of the enormous support of the settlement 
that exists.
    I believe the settlement to be extraordinarily just. The 
licensing of Windows at a uniform price will discourage most favored 
policies between Microsoft and PC producers. Now producers will not 
have to compete against one another to receive the same treatment 
from Microsoft. This newfound freedom for producers benefits the 
technology industry immensely. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed 
not to retaliate against vendors that use or sell non-Microsoft 
products.
    These benefits will in turn be passed on to consumers. It is 
clear that this settlement is in everyone's best interests.
    Sincerely,
    George McLennon



MTC-00010749

From: jerrystuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For Attorney General Ashcroft.
    Jerry Bonow



MTC-00010750

From: Chris Bertelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I want to urge you to accept the current Microsoft Settlement 
and move forward. Your energy is best spent on companies who screw 
their employees and customers like Enron. Leave our most successful 
USA company alone!
    Thanks,
    Chris Bertelson



MTC-00010751

From: Adrian Latinak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adrian Latinak
5 Wildwood Lane
Amherst, NH 03031
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 


[[Page 25353]]

be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian Latinak



MTC-00010752

From: James White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James White
11 Sand Fiddler RD.
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James D. White



MTC-00010753

From: Wm G Fuller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wm G Fuller
360 CR 259
Iuka, MS 38852
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wm G Fuller



MTC-00010754

From: Barry Younce
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Younce
2308 SW Walt Arney Rd
Lenoir, NC 28645
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barry A Younce



MTC-00010755

From: Shah Raza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
755 Birkdale Drive
Fayetteville, Georgia 30215
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my opinion in regards to the Microsoft 
settlement issue. I feel that this antitrust dispute has gone on 
long enough, and I would like to see a final resolution to this 
dispute. I support the settlement that was reached in November, and 
I believe this settlement will serve in the best public interest.
    Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions agreed upon in 
this settlement. For example, Microsoft has agreed to license its 
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers 
on identical terms and conditions, including price. Microsoft has 
also agreed to design future versions of Windows, beginning with an 
interim release of Windows XP, to provide a mechanism to make it 
easy for computer makers, consumers and software developers to 
promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. This settlement is 
complete and thorough.
    I support this settlement and believe this company should not be 
penalized for their success.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Shah Raza



MTC-00010756

From: Don Dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached please find a letter for Attorney General John 
Ashcroft.
Donald E. Dennis
32727 30th Avenue Southwest
Federal Way, WA 98023-2763
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I'm writing to express my opinion that the antitrust case 
against Microsoft has been flawed from the start. Microsoft has not 
infringed upon any rights of American people and has just operated 
within the confines by which we set up our free market economy. I 
have yet to hear complaints from consumers about Microsoft's prices 
or practices. In fact I feel that their prices permitted me to have 
a PC at home with software that I could afford and most people I 
know feel the same way. It seems the only complaints are from their 
competitors because they can't keep up.
    Under the terms of the settlement Microsoft will be forced to 
not enter into any third party agreements for exclusive distribution 
rights. That is ridiculous. This is the same as telling Pepsi they 
cannot sign an exclusive agreement with Wendy's. Also, creating a 
uniform price list with the 20 largest computer makers is 
essentially setting up the framework for a monopoly. In fact many of 
the concessions create situations that do violate antitrust laws 
instead of appeasing them. It's in the best interest of the American 
public to end this litigation now. Microsoft is a leading innovator 
of technology and we need their growth and leadership to lift the IT 
sector out of its current state. Microsoft has done what other 


[[Page 25354]]

competitors could not do, but now it's time to let them play it out 
in a free market, which is what our society, is based upon, not the 
government intervention that has occurred in this case. I urge your 
office to make the settlement a reality.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Donald E. Dennis



MTC-00010757

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsfot Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is disgusting from a consumer 
standpoint. It does nothing to improve the climate of competition in 
the Operating System/software sector, nor does it contain any 
substantive penalty for past anticompetitive activity on the part of 
Microsoft. Microsoft's contention that the status quo allows for 
improved innovation is patently absurd on its face , and I think 
actually this proposed solution will have a continuingly negative 
effect on improvement in the software field. MicroSoft through its 
``embrace and extend'' policies does not innovate it takes 
innovation from competitors, and extends the functionality's with 
proprietary additions which block any effective counter to its 
extensions. Due to dominance in the market, secondary to 
exclusionary marketing practices rather than true innovation 
Microsoft has effectively prevented useful, timely and economical 
improvements in the market.
    Microsoft has in the past and continues in the present to 
attempt to block any competitive innovations. They have perverted 
standards to their own benefit, and refused to allow others to write 
software which will work well with the Windows OS. They provide 
crippled renditions of proprietary software included with their 
operating system in attempt to drive competitors from the 
marketplace. Microsoft have made it virtually impossible to purchase 
a consumer grade computer with any operating system other than 
windows. My own personal experience has required me to spend over 
two thousand dollars during the past 5 years for software that I 
have never used, and will not use in the future. By requiring that 
peripheral companies to only develop drivers for the Windows OS I am 
prevented from using many pieces of hardware that would make my 
computers more functional.
    I think the proposed solution should be dismissed out of hand. 
It does nothing to protect consumers and the computer industry in 
general from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. It contains no 
real penalty for MS and encourages continued anticompetitive 
practices on Microsoft's part.
    Jim
    James Mellema, CRNA
    If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of 
servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in 
peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your 
chains sit lightly upon you.--Samuel Adams



MTC-00010758

From: Cindy Kasin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to express my opinion that the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the DOJ and other states should be approved. 
The settlement is fair, and it is certainly in the public interest 
to bring this matter to an end. The uncertainty and anxiety the 
litigation is adding to generally uncertain economic times will only 
stifle innovation in the marketplace.
    The only people who stand to gain by prolonging this matter are 
disgruntled competitors and their highly paid lawyers and lobbyists. 
It's time to get on with it.
    Cynthia D. Kasin



MTC-00010759

From: Ned and Suzy Cheely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:33pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and get onto more serious problems! We, 
the taxpayers, through the government, have spent enough time and 
money on this case. It is time to move on. Please support the 
settlement as proposed by Microsoft and the Bush Administration. We 
do.
    Thank you.
    Suzy Cheely
    9 Harrop Parrish
    Williamsburg, VA 23188



MTC-00010760

From: Joe and Pam Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case is a colossal waste of every tax payer's money. It's 
clear that no settlement can be reached that doesn't pass muster 
with California's lobbying interests. The Justice department should 
spend it's resources going after terrorists and companies that are 
truly damaging this country, like Enron.
    Joseph M. Sherman
    Resident of Washington State



MTC-00010761

From: Louis Parks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement. As a consumer and an 
American citizen I am sickened that this case ever happened and that 
it has gone on for so long. Settle the case, and let us and 
Microsoft move on with our lives.
    Louis Parks
    Chief Technology Officer
    Adsoft Design, Inc.
    (801) 627-6300
    2404 Washington Blvd.
    Ogden, UT 84401




MTC-00010762

From: Adam Jenkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    As a java developer I am extremely worried about what is going 
on with the settlement, especially when you consider that it hasn't 
deterred Microsoft from anti-competitive behavior. An example of 
this is the security restriction they are putting on the java 
virtual machine on the Windows XP operating system. There is no 
logical reason to take the actions it has, when you consider that 
sun has spent many years developing java security, and the current 
security model is far more secure than Microsoft's competitor to 
java applets, ActiveX. Sun Microsystems pioneered the internet while 
Microsoft was still asleep...they developed a great language for 
distributed computing and really assisted in the development of the 
internet by providing a lot of software solutions free. The internet 
would not be what it is today without applets...think about that, 
all distributed computing through web browsers in the early days of 
the internet was accomplished through applets, a lot of companies 
that drive the US economy today (Macromedia, QuickTime) began their 
lifecycles with java. Now we are in real danger of loosing that 
technology, just like what happened to Netscape. It is very 
disconcerting that companies that give back so much to the community 
and advance communication mediums for the benefit of all society are 
allowed to be wiped out by a company that does none of those things.
    If you do not take sterner actions against Microsoft, you are 
sending a message to all developers saying that it's no use for them 
to give back to the community with the technology they create...it 
will be a sad day when software developers are too scared to do 
something that benefits the community (e.g. java technology from 
sun, cookies from Netscape), because they risk having they're 
livelihood destroyed by a large monopoly. This is not a small case, 
it has wide reaching, long term implications for what is becoming 
one of the major communication mediums in the world. Your decision 
here will effect global communication for decades to come, please, I 
beg of you, make the right decision and release Microsoft's hold on 
the development community, allow everyone in the world to benefit 
from the internet and not just one company, the world will thank you
    Sincerely
    Adam Jenkins
    Senior Team Leader
    Tralee Software Pty Ltd



MTC-00010763

From: Ty Conner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ty Conner
506 Westmoreland Pl
Jackson, TN 38301
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech 


[[Page 25355]]

industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ty Conner



MTC-00010764

From: Mark Dubosky
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Dubosky
1312 Chattahoochee Circle
Roswell, GA 30075
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Dubosky



MTC-00010765

From: Ozie Christian
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ozie Christian
3590 Cortez Dr.
Pensacola, Fl 32503-3116
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ozie Christian



MTC-00010766

From: William Hildebrand
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Hildebrand
1420 Whitetail Court
Hermitage, TN 37076
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William Hildebrand



MTC-00010767

From: Ray Trees
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Trees
150 Avery St.
Walla Walla, WA 99362
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a 


[[Page 25356]]

serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Trees Jr.



MTC-00010768

From: William Capella
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Capella
9 Marlon Pond Rd.
Hamilton SQuare, NJ 08690
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William M Capella



MTC-00010769

From: Jim Vaughan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Vaughan
1114 S Juanita Av
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vaughan



MTC-00010770

From: James Saville
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Saville
313 Granada Drive
Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    This case should never have been brought--it is a simple case of 
competitors unable to compete because they are not smart enough-- 
consumers have never been harmed!!! Upwards of 60% of Americans 
thought the federal government should not have broken up Microsoft. 
If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft can get back 
into the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James Saville



MTC-00010771

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice
    I firmly believe that the suit against Microsoft was unfair. I 
think Microsoft has been a boon to the Internet and to computer 
users all over the world. It was responsible for setting a standard 
that has made communication between users easier. As a rank amature 
on the computer, I at least have found that I can find employment 
and communicate with my friends with reasonable ease. I liken this 
to being an American from the west who can converse with a 
DownEaster or a person from the deep south with only occasional 
confusion as to terminology, as compared to a person from America 
trying to communicate with a German or Japanese or Sudanese where 
the language is so different as to be incomprehensible to me.
    Furthermore, the federal govenment, which brought suit against 
Microsoft, has reached an agreement. As a taxpayer I helped fund 
that suit (even though I did not wish to). Now some of the states 
wish to impose a different outcome in the suit, although it has 
already been settled to my satisfaction, and the plaintiff, using my 
funds to pursue the action. Microsoft has already paid the price 
through the federal settlement and through the cost to defend 
itself. The latter alone was sufficient punishment to address issues 
perceived only by a handful as being egregious.
    Again, I did not think there were grounds for a suit in the 
beginning. In our society those who put forth the most effort and 
resources generally succeed the best anyway. This is the way free 
enterprise should work, and this is what Microsoft has done.
    Microsoft has provided a service by making it easier to use 
technology. I remember years back when there were so many different 
programs and operating systems that only the few could succeed in 
going from one to another. Now, with some standardization, but with 
plenty of options, most of us are comfortable with entering new 
employment or enjoyment with a minimum of training. The savings in 
money is inestimable.
    Please, stop this nonsense.
    A taypayer:
    Judith F. Jacobs
    1880 Austin
    Gardnerville, NV 89410
    [email protected]



MTC-00010772

From: Arnold Kraft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:18pm
Subject: microsoft settlement case 30 Holly Circle Weston, MA 02493-
1455 January 13, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft United States 
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Like most who follow technology news, I am pleased that the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached a settlement 
agreement. Three years of litigation have proven to be taxing on the 
entire IT industry. The settlement calls for Microsoft to renounce 
its ability to retaliate against its competitors, yet, its 
competitors retain their right to retaliate against Microsoft in the 
open market. This action may prove to decrease competition within 
the software industry, which will inevitably hurt the consumer.
    The Department of Justice owes the American IT industry and 
Microsoft an end to this suit. Prolonging the suit can only serve to 
further harm the American consumer. Please accept the settlement 
now.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Arnold Kraft
    Arnold A. Kraft
    30 Holly Circle
    Weston, MA 02493-1455
    Tel: 781 235 0560
    Fax: 781 235 4345
    Cell: 617 413 5426



MTC-00010773

From: chris berger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:20pm


[[Page 25357]]


Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    HONORABLE JUDGE AND AG OF CALIFORNIA;
    AS A LONG-TIME MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY, I AM 
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE US GOVT AND 
MICROSOFT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT HAS A 
NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES--NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THAT 
MICROSOFT IS REALLY NOT PUNISHED IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY FOR PAST 
ABUSES. MAYBE EVEN WORSE--UNDER THE PROPOSAL IT APPEARS THAT WE IN 
THE INDUSTRY--ESPECIALLY US SMALLER PLAYERS
    WILL HAVE TO RELY ON MS EVEN MORE...AND THAT IS TRULY 
FRIGHTENING. I RUN A SMALL SOFTWARE COMPANY BASED HERE IN THE BAY 
AREA. BUT NOT ONLY IS THE PROPOSED DEAL FRIGHTENING TO COMPANIES 
LIKE MINE, I BELIEVE IT RAISES SERIOUS ISSUES FOR THE ENTIRE 
AMERICAN SOFTWARE INDUSTRY...AND OUR NATION'S ECONOMY AS WELL. I 
HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE THE 
PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND FIND IF IT IS TRULY IN THE 'BEST INTERESTS' 
OF CONSUMERS. IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW HAVING ONE MONOPOLISTIC PROVIDER 
OF THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CONSUMER SOFTWARE IS IN OUR COUNTRY'S BEST 
INTERESTS. AND AS MS HAS CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY SHOWN--IF THEY OWN 
95% OF THE MARKET FOR THE OS--THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF 
THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
    I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STAND UP TO MICROSOFT.
    THANK YOU.
    CHRIS BERGER



MTC-00010774

From: Margaret (038) Doug Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Someone want's tohave the internet just like the telephone 
system when the Feds got through with it a few years age. Lets 
settle this as quick and as -painless as possible so we can get on 
with our lives.



MTC-00010775

From: Robin Thomas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robin Thomas
9061 East Shorewood Dr.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robin Thomas



MTC-00010776

From: Dave Melvin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dave Melvin
1633 River Birch Ave
Oviedo, FL 32765-7962
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Melvin



MTC-00010777

From: Wai Seen Teh


To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wai Seen Teh
415 Namahana Street
Honolulu, HI 96815
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 


[[Page 25358]]

judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    The Wai Seen



MTC-00010778

From: Douglas Whitmarsh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Whitmarsh
727 whiting Street
Hanover, MA 02339
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Whitmarsh



MTC-00010779

From: David Beatson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Beatson
PO Box 1052
Shelter Island, NY 11964-1052
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David R Beatson



MTC-00010780

From: John Hightower
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hightower
15 Butterfly Cove
Little Rock, AE 72210
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    It is time for this anti-consumer trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom, when this dinosaur is 
laid to rest.
    Then Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and 
creating better products for consumers, and stop wasting tons of 
time and other valuable resources on litigation. It's their 
competitors who can't make it in the marketplace, not the end users 
and ordinary people who have to rely on their computers to be 
productive, who benefit from this anti-trust, anti-consumer exercise 
in poor government.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers, not making it possible for other businesses 
to keep making products that people don't want and won't buy. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of successful corporations, people who actually use the 
software--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 
the winners and losers. With the chains off the high-tech industry, 
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies, instead of funding to the tune of 
hundreds of thousands or more dollars the parties and politicians 
who represent these market-loser businesses.
    Sincerely,
    John Hightower



MTC-00010782

From: Ryan Ware
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ryan Ware
233 Willow Lake Blvd
St Paul, MN 55110
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Microsoft unfairly uses its products to leverage market share. 
Make them open Office up--file formats, possibly a linux version. 
Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Ware



MTC-00010783

From: Jeff Naber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Naber
10111 S. College Place
Tulsa, OK 74137
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.

    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Naber



MTC-00010784

From: John Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Smith
1104 Cara Drive
Largo, FL 33771
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John C. Smith



MTC-00010785

From: Colin Lowenberg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Colin Lowenberg
5123 Birdwood
Houston, TX 77096
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division


[[Page 25359]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Although I was wholeheartedly content when one lawyer attacking 
our newly elected president was finally taken off the payroll and 
removed from the Microsoft trial, I also wholeheartedly agree with 
the views shared below. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' 
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to 
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, 
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers 
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the 
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Colin Lowenberg



MTC-00010786

From: David Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:10pm
Subject: Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston University, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as 
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the 
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by 
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting 
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in 
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards. 
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism 
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
    To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not 
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to 
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not 
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets 
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to 
overturn this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Hill
    Brighton, Massachusetts



MTC-00010787

From: donnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:17pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
21902 96th Avenue Southeast
Snohomish, Washington 98296
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We are writing you today to voice our opinions in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. This case has 
gone on long enough. It is time to embrace this settlement and let 
this company get back to doing business. We have more important 
things to worry about. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all terms 
of this agreement. Microsoft did not get off easy. This strict 
settlement contains terms that go well beyond the original terms of 
the lawsuit. For example, Microsoft will now share information about 
the internal workings of Windows with competitors, and it will use a 
uniform price list when licensing out Windows. Microsoft has agreed 
to these terms so as to hasten this process.
    Again, we support Microsoft and this settlement in this dispute. 
During these difficult economic times, we must focus all our energy 
in bolstering our lagging economy. Please do your part by supporting 
this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice & Donaleen Ravensberg



MTC-00010788

From: Connie Wickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case with Microsoft in a fair manner. There 
has been great damage to our economy and to investors and consumers. 
Please do not squelch innovation.
    Thank you.
    Connie



MTC-00010790

From: Dennis Lutz II
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  9:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Lutz II
22526 Savannah Heights
Von Ormy, TX 78073-3009
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating 
and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting 
valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating better 
goods and offering superior services to consumers. With government 
out of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of 
corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will 
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the 
reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be 
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Lutz II



MTC-00010791

From: Alex Tsukernik
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Tsukernik
184 Cabot St. Apt 3
Newton, MA 02458
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Tsukernik



MTC-00010792

From: Jason Prell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jason Prell
    350 Cayman Street
    Iowa City, IA 52245
    January 13, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division


[[Page 25360]]

    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Prell



MTC-00010793

From: Georg Bolch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Georg Bolch
    P O Box 528
    Suquamish, WA 98392-0528
    January 13, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Georg G Bolch



MTC-00010794

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:13pm
Subject: (no subject)
    GENTLEMEN:
    THE JUDGE IN THIS LAST DECISION OF THE MICROSFT AGREEMENT STATES 
THAT THEIR OFFER WAS TOO ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THEM AND TOO COMPETITIVE 
FOR APPLE COMPUTER. SINCE WHEN DOES A JUDGE RULE ON COMPETITION 
BETWEEN TWO CORPORATE ENTITIES. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT BUSINESS WAS 
ALL ABOUT. WHAT DID APPLE EVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE IN 
POOR AND NEEDY AREAS. HAVE THE COURTS IN OUR COUNTRY TURNED SO 
LIBERAL AND AGAINST BIG AND SUCCESSFUL CORPORATIONS.
    THE JUDGE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT A BILLIOIN DOLLARS WAS ENOUGH-IS 
THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE A WEALTHY COMPANY? ARE THESE JUDGES , 
POLITICIANS AND STATES ATTY GENERALS TRYI NG TO ULTIMATELY BREAK BIG 
BUSINESS.OR JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE 
RESOURCES
    DISAPPOINTED AND CONCERNED



MTC-00010795

From: charles varano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is fair & equitable and agree that we 
need to move on with this issue.



MTC-00010796

From: Goldberg, Adrian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a developer of business software using a variety of 
technologies and platforms I view with consternation the continuing 
and growing market monopoly by Microsoft. I believe it to in the 
best interests of the US IT companies and IT companies worldwide 
that the US government drastically inhibit Microsofts ability to 
dictate and control software usage worldwide.
    Adrian Goldberg
    GIS Consultant
    Sinclair Knight Merz
    Melbourne, Australia



MTC-00010797

From: Jim Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  10:45pm
Subject: Tunney Comments on PFJ in US v Microsoft
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division us Department of Justice 601 D Street NW, Suite 
1200 Washington, DC 20530 [email protected]>


    Ms. Hesse:
    I am submitting these comments by email since the Department is 
as affected by recent events as other governmental agencies. I am 
writing to comment on the proposed Final Judgment in US v Microsoft.
    ``[T]he suit has been a futile exercise if the Government proves 
a violation but fails to secure a remedy adequate to redress it.''--
US v E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. The proposed Final Judgment 
proposed to the Court by the United States Department of Justice and 
Microsoft fails to serve the public interest in too many ways to be 
an acceptable resolution to the case. While serving the public 
interest must be the primary goal of any resolution to this case, I 
note in passing that a crucial requirement of any system of justice 
must be that lawbreakers do not reap the rewards of their 
misconduct. The proposed Final Judgment fails to meet that goal as 
it is entirely forward-looking, albeit weakly so.
    First, the proposed Final Judgment does not contain ``any 
admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law.'' This is 
unacceptable. Microsoft has broken the law. That is a fact decided 
by the District Court, upheld by the Appellate Court, and one which 
any resolution of this case must explicitly state. Independent civil 
proceedings will rely on the outcome of this case and it is critical 
that a declaration of lawbreaking be present.
    The restrictions placed on Microsoft's business practices by the 
proposed Final Judgment appear at first glance to be sound but are 
so riddled with exceptions as to be effectively meaningless. With 
just a few minutes' thought, I was able to think of sidesteps by 
Microsoft that would neuter the restrictions and yet fall within the 
purview of the proposed Final Judgment. I am a layman; I can only 
imagine the ease with which Microsoft's legal staff can think of 
sidesteps--especially when you consider that they wrote much of this 
proposed Final Judgment. For example, Microsoft is not required to 
``document, disclose, or license'' anything that would purportedly 
hinder security or rights management. That's a gaping hole which 
would allow essentially all networking and multimedia protocols used 
in products folded into Windows to be completely undocumented. With 
the release of Windows 2000, Microsoft claimed that they had 
included Kerberos authentication mechanisms. They used empty data 
fields in an undisclosed manner to extend the Kerberos specification 
in a manner to provide authentication services between Windows 
servers and Windows clients which were denied to non-Windows 
clients. When pressed for details, the company asserted that their 
modifications were security-related and refused to disclose them. 
That conduct is still permitted by this proposed Final Judgment. 
Further, the proposed Final Judgment appears to be totally ignorant 
of the free software movement (sometimes called ``open source''). 
Neither term appears in the document, nor in the Competitive Impact 
Statement released later. Nearly all the proposed Final Judgment's 
provisions are predicated on commercial interests representing the 
only means of competition. Free software is not as a first principle 
about 



[[Page 25361]]

making money or gathering market share. It is a philosophical 
perspective that software can and should be shared so that it can be 
improved through the the ability and right of its users to correct 
errors, add features, or provide superior implementations of 
algorithms. It is important to understand that by ``sharing'' I do 
not refer to the violations of intellectual property law best 
exemplified by the Napster service. This sharing is a decision made 
by the original programmer which permits or even requires 
redistribution of the source code (the human-readable information 
which is turned into the ones-and-zeroes of computers to be run as a 
program). The best known examples of this movement are the Linux 
kernel and the GNU tools that together provide a computing platform 
which can run on the same hardware as Windows and which provides a 
functional equivalent to the Unix operating system. Since the 
software in a Linux-based computer is largely written by 
noncommercial interests, the programmers would fail to meet the 
``business viability'' requirement for licensing Microsoft 
intellectual property needed to allow interoperability--said 
requirement to be ascertained by none other than Microsoft, in 
another of this proposed Final Judgment's absurdities. Also, since 
many of the free software programmers are hobbyists, they lack the 
financial resources to meet licensing terms that companies like Sun 
Microsystems or Apple Computer would doubtless find to be 
``reasonable and nondiscriminatory''. Given that Linux-based systems 
represent the greatest competitive threat to Microsoft's desktop 
operating system monopoly right now, leaving the free software 
programmers and their software methodology out of the judgment 
throws away the single best option to restore competition to the 
marketplace.
    The aspect of this proposed Final Judgment that most fails the 
``sniff test'' is the compliance and enforcement section. For 
starters, the Technical Committee is a wholly inadequate enforcement 
mechanism. The fact that one of the three members is to be chosen by 
Microsoft and one chosen in part by that member means that half the 
committee will be of Microsoft's choosing. Prisoners do not get to 
select their jailers and Microsoft should not have any say in its 
overseers. The fact that such a farcical arrangement could even be 
suggested stems from the failure of the proposed Final Judgment to 
acknowledge expressly that Microsoft has broken the law. The 
enforcement mechanisms read like a partnership agreement, not the 
lettering of a lawbreaking monopolist. Once selected, the Technical 
Committee's effectiveness is almost nonexistent. Three people, even 
with a staff to assist them, are not capable of auditing the tens of 
millions of lines of software that make up Windows and the 
Middleware produced by Microsoft. They cannot interview the 
thousands of Microsoft employees. They are also to be gagged from 
making public statements about their activities, a shame when simple 
public statements about Microsoft's conduct can influence that 
conduct. Staggeringly, the result of their work is not even 
admissible in enforcement proceedings! Of what possible value is 
this committee?
    Finally, I object to the termination stipulation of the proposed 
Final Judgment. This wretched agreement will be in effect for five 
years, with the promise of up to two more years if Microsoft fails 
to comply with its terms. I find myself compelled to ask what 
reasonable person could refrain from paroxysms of belly-laughter at 
the idea that the solution to the failure of a five-year agreement 
is to extend that same agreement for two more years. The further 
damage to competition and the public that Microsoft could wreak by 
the end of that five-year agreement is almost incalculable. It took 
the company less than five years to annihilate not just Netscape but 
the commercial market for web browsers. Now that they have set their 
sights on messaging, home video games, multimedia such as audio and 
video, online shopping, personal video recorders, authentication 
services and more, how can the Department consider allowing the 
degree of autonomy that the proposed Final Judgment would?
    I have barely scratched the surface of my objections to this 
proposed Pinal Judgment; I trust that others will address the 
shortcomings I have left out. I would like to take a moment to 
mention the utterly disgraceful manner in which the United States 
government has betrayed the American people by throwing in the towel 
in US v Microsoft. After securing a thundering victory in the 
District Court and then accomplishing the coup of having that 
victory largely upheld by a unanimous decision of one of the 
country's more business-friendly Appellate Courts, settling the case 
with this pathetic excuse for a Final Judgment is contemptible. The 
career of the head of antitrust at Justice, Mr. James, is a history 
of justification for anticompetitive conduct and Attorney General 
Ashcroft is occupied with the September 11 attacks on the United 
States, but they are officials of the Department of Justice with 
obligations to the American people. The proposed Final Judgment 
comes nowhere near adequately discharging those obligations.
    The Competitive Impact Statement required as a justification by 
the proposed Final Judgment has been released and it is as 
unenlightening as one would expect given the agreement that prompted 
it. University of Baltimore antitrust expert Robert Lande put it 
best when he said ``I think Charles James is going to spend the next 
30 years of his life saying `I didn't sell out to Microsoft.''' The 
Competitive Impact Statement is as telling in what it doesn't say as 
in what it does say. The Department's repetition throughout the 
Competitive Impact Statement that the proposed Final Judgment 
restores competition and serves the public interest cannot make that 
statement true. Its recounting of the history of the case is 
accurate. Would that the actual impact statement were so. In truth, 
it reads as little more than a restating of the proposed Final 
Judgment with a bit more plain English and a bit less ``legalese''. 
At least, it reads that way until the end, when the Department tries 
vainly to justify this unconditional surrender. Their reasoning 
essentially boils down to ``better a horrible conclusion today than 
a good one in two years.'' I take particular exception to this 
statement: ``The remedies contained in the Proposed Final Judgment 
are not only consistent with the relief the United States might have 
obtained in litigation, but they have the 
advantages of immediacy and certainty.'' That is blatantly false. 
The District Court's ordered relief was far stricter than this 
settlement and the Appellate Court was quite clear that their reason 
for vacating that order was to preserve the appearance of 
impartiality. The newly assigned judge was expressly permitted to 
consider that very same ordered relief. The proposed Final Judgment 
may have :'immediacy and certainty'' but it is certain that 
Microsoft will immediately resume Business As Usual--to the 
detriment of American citizens, businesses, governments. Given the 
feature-set of Windows XP, one could make a compelling argument that 
the company has already resumed business as usual.
    The Department of Justice had an opportunity to restore 
competition to an exciting industry that has been hobbled for too 
long by Microsoft's monopoly abuses. You had the support of two 
courts and you have come back with a settlement which isn't even a 
slap on the wrist: it's a loving caress. Shame on you all. You have 
a chance at redemption, however: withdraw the proposed Final 
Judgment. Return to Judge Kollar-Kotelly for the penalty hearings 
ordered by the Appellate Court when it disqualified Judge Jackson 
from rehearing that stage of the trial. Lay the evidence before her. 
Include Microsoft's actions since Judge Jackson issued his Findings 
of Fact, such as Microsoft's incorporation into Windows XP of 
multimedia players, instant messengers, and online shopping and let 
this case be ended by a judicial order that can only surpass the 
proposed Final Judgment in effectiveness.
    Let me conclude this letter by reiterating my key points of 
objection to the government's proposed Final Judgment: it permits 
the monopolist to retain the fruits of its illegal acts. It provides 
no incentive for the monopolist to reform its business practices and 
thereby come into compliance with the requirements and restrictions 
of the Sherman Act. It ignores past harm to competition and does 
nothing to constrain future harm. It is in every way a betrayal of 
the Department's responsibility to the nation and is exceptionally 
painful given the smashing success the Department had in proving its 
case before the Court.
    Thank you for your time.
    James L. Hill, PhD
    105 Azure Drive
    Los Alamos, NM 87544
    505-670-4280
    [email protected]>



MTC-00010798

From: Henrik Bruun
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henrik Bruun
2557 Bishop Estates Road
Jacksonville, FL 32259
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement


[[Page 25362]]

U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Henrik



MTC-00010799

From: gary keramidas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
gary keramidas
18722 dale ave
allen park, mi 48101
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    gary j keramidas



MTC-00010800

From: Shane Kelley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shane Kelley
10628 Gardenwood Road
Orlando, FL 32837
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Shane Kelley



MTC-00010801

From: Craig Catapano
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Catapano
8912 North Lamar Blvd Suite 214
Austin, Tx 78753
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering 
superior services to consumers. With government out of the business 
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 
the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-
tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new 
and competitive products and technologies. It's time to Drop this 
none-sense and move ON! There is no ``Monopoly'', move on to 
something more important...US Healthcare.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Craig M Catapano



MTC-00010802

From: Sean Phillipson
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/13/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The remedies outlined in the current proposed agreement don't go 
nearly far enough to reign in the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft. Microsoft has already violated the spirit of even the 
proposed remedy, and previous findings, by including even more 
applications in their new OS (Windows XP). With every application 
they include, whole software markets are put out of business. I also 
thought that any remedy should deprive Microsoft of any gains made 
by the monopolistic behavior. Microsoft made tens of billions of 
dollars from this behavior, why do they get to keep that money? Why 
have I never heard of any effort to estimate of how much money was 
made through Microsoft's monopolistic behavior so a real punishment 
can be imposed?
    The remedy proposal of the 9 remaining states is far better and 
should prevent the behavior that got Microsoft in court. That is the 
idea behind this remedy, I hope. Companies are still afraid to anger 
Microsoft. There are subtle ways in which Microsoft can ``get even'' 
with a company for favoring another OS. And now I see in the news 
that Microsoft actually has a program in place to kill Linux. 
Microsoft has agreed to the DOJ settlement because it still leaves 
it with plenty of ``Monopolistic'' opportunity and loop holes.
    As a software engineer I can tell you that Microsoft can modify 
it's OS code to do the things that the 9 hold out states suggest. 
They are flat dishonest if they say they can't. Every version of 
Unix/Linux/MacOS cleanly separates the OS services from any 
applications. A browser is a application and should never be 
embedded in the OS. These are smart guys, tell them they have to do 
something and they can do it. They may not like it, but they can do 
it.
    Thank you
    Doug Phillipson
    Las Vegas Nevada



MTC-00010803

From: [email protected]@inetgw


[[Page 25363]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it is time to go forward and stop the endless litigation 
[email protected]



MTC-00010804

From: Art Hilgart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge the breakup of the MS operating system and applications 
into two firms, along with compulsory licensing of all MS software, 
now and in the future.
    Patents are intended to reward temporarily inventions not 
obvious to others. They are not grants of permanent monopoly, nor 
should they be. Academics and journalists rushing to defend 
Microsoft and disparage the Justice Department display stronger 
ideologies than memories. Bill Gates is not an innovator serving 
millions of computer users as he and his defenders would have us 
believe, but the incredibly lucky exploiter of a monopoly he has 
kited into scores of billions of dollars for himself. When the 
personal computer was no bigger than a breadbox, IBM saw little 
future for the device and entered the market with assemblies of 
purchased innards. To run programs, a computer needs a controlling 
operating underbase, and when Bill Gates and Paul Allen falsely told 
IBM that they had such a system, IBM thoughtlessly contracted with 
them to license it for their desktop diversion. Gates and Allen then 
proceeded to buy one of the many such programs that had been written 
by hobbyists and others. With the help of his attorney father, young 
Gates acquired Q-DOS from its hapless inventor for a few dollars of 
his father's money and changed its name from ?Quick-and-Dirty-
Operating System? to ?Microsoft Disc Operating System?, or MS-DOS. 
This cloud no bigger than a man's hand consisted of two programs? 
COMMAND.COM and CONFIG.SYS? with a combined size of less than 100kb. 
As it happened, IBM salesmen were as adept at selling PCs to 
business offices as they had been at selling electric typewriters, 
and DOS became the industry standard Because IBM did not buy the 
system outright and because intellectual property law confers a 
monopoly on the system and its interminable upgrades, Gates now has 
control of most personal computers in the world.
    Nearly all application programs are written for DOS or its 
successor, Windows, so buyers of IBM-type computers must also buy a 
Microsoft operating system, and since most computers are now based 
on an MS system, application software designers must write Windows-
based programs if they are to sell many copies. Others are free to 
design non-Microsoft operating systems, but these are useless in the 
absence of applications, and applications won?t be written for 
systems not already in wide use. Because of this circularity and 
constant upgrades conferring perpetuity to MS patents and 
copyrights, Bill Gates is the proud possessor of an unshakeable 
monopoly.
    This is enough for antitrust attention, but there is more. I 
recently bought a new custom-built computer from Gateway 2000. In 
addition to the ineluctable Windows, the package included Microsoft 
Excel, Word, and Explorer. When I told the consultant I wanted the 
WordPerfect/Quattro Pro/Netscape suite, I was told that Gateway's 
contract with Microsoft required that they sell and install these 
Microsoft applications with the necessary Windows. Even were I to 
take the Microsoft programs and pay extra for the WordPerfect suite, 
they could not sell it or install it. I bought the WordPerfect 
programs directly from Corel and installed them myself, but most 
consumers probably just use the Microsoft programs that come with 
new computers, extending Microsoft's control into the applications 
field.
    Gates did not write DOS, and his staff copied the Windows user 
interface from Apple. The Microsoft programs I had to buy but do not 
use are not marvelous innovations, they too are imitations. Word was 
copied from WordPerfect, Explorer from Netscape, Excel from Lotus, 
and Money from Quicken. The dominant shares that the Microsoft 
ripoffs now command in the applications field are entirely due to 
Gates's use of the essential Windows to fob off his imitations as 
part of a bundle. The success of Windows is not due to its elegance. 
The bloated, slow, and unwieldy system continually requires purchase 
of bigger and faster hardware. There are innumerable bugs and 
customer service is mediocre and expensive. A common ?solution? to a 
problem is a recommendation to back up everything externally, unload 
all programs, reformat the hard drive, and start over. Of course, 
upgrades will eventually correct the errors? but carry a new 
generation of bugs. Octopus like, moreover, Windows has a tendency 
to sabotage rival software and reset configurations to use MS 
programs as defaults.
    Gates and his cheering section bemoan that the Justice 
Department is about to cause irreparable harm to millions of 
computer users. Since Microsoft has contributed approximately 
nothing to the nation besides a fiendishly clever business plan, the 
consumers don?t need to worry. I urge the breakup of the MS 
operating system and applications into two firms, along with 
compulsory licensing of all MS software, now and in the future.
    Patents are intended to reward temporarily inventions not 
obvious to others. They are not grants of permanent monopoly, nor 
should they be.
    Art Hilgart
    [email protected]



MTC-00010805

From: Greg Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I like many I know have been viewing the Microsoft litigation 
with a whole range of emotions. First disbelief that the government 
was seriously taking on such a powerful force. Next observing some 
judicial success and what appeared to be a serious effort to right 
an obvious wrong, I was very encouraged. With the reversals since 
the elections and many publicized Microsoft donations, my skepticism of 
my elected officials returned. However, nothing can compare to 
outrage I felt when I heard the Microsoft's settlement proposal.
    A proposal which is so obviously meant squash what little 
competition it has in the education market. The audacity is 
something I should have suspected Microsoft of. What baffles me is 
why, when proposed, the instant response was not ``Microsoft, you 
just don't get it?'' There are many good options which would create 
competition in the software industry. Forcing Microsoft to spend 
money it earns from overpriced software we are forced to purchase on 
anything seems absurd. How is that solution, it's hardly even a 
penalty, Microsoft can charge anything it likes for it's products. 
It already charges several orders of magnitude more than the 
industry for it's mediocre products. How about some obvious 
solutions, obvious to anyone who has been in the computer business 
for a while, like Microsoft.
    How about JAVA. Force Microsoft to include Sun's VM with Windows 
and make it really work. Or how about ``Open Doc.'' This would truly 
put the software industry in full motion. Microsoft was so worried 
about this software at one time it had to force Apple to discontinue 
it with drastic action. I suspect a breakup may also bring the 
software industry out in force with new and useful products. I hope 
you can see through Microsoft's fog of absurd statements and massive 
political contributions to do some thing to eliminate the vise 
Microsoft has on the software industry.
    Greg Smith
    Westmont College Webmaster



MTC-00010806

From: Mark Stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02  11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US Department of Justice is wrong to attack Microsoft. Their 
grounds of attack allege that Microsoft included Internet Explorer 
with their Windows Operating System. The DOJ claims this harmed 
consumers because it stifled competition. I strongly disagree. 
Microsoft did not harm me in any way, in fact it more than met my 
needs in an efficient manner. In University, as in work, there are 
deadlines to meet and time is a precious commodity. Computers are a 
tool which can greatly assist in getting things done in a faster, 
more efficient way.
    One thing I did not like about computers is the amount of time 
and effort it took to install programs. When I needed a report 
quickly, it took precious time to evaluate and purchase the 
necessary software. The technical process of installing software was 
not as simple (as it is today). Microsoft was able to answer this 
issue by bundling. They sold the O.S, the web browser together, 
which was exactly what I was looking for. I liked the idea of buying 
a new PC with all the software included. The US DOJ directly told 
Microsoft this is wrong, and indirectly is telling me that my 
personal desires are actually harming others. The result of these 
actions? Instead of getting a solution I want, I will only be 
allowed to have software 

[[Page 25364]]

solutions which are government approved. I 
will no longer have the choice which was available before.
    I can make my own choices about what is good for me. I will not 
purchase products that do not meet my needs. The DOJ seems intent on 
removing the choice of packaged software, and is attacking Microsoft 
for the 'unlawful' process of meeting this desire.
    Also, The idea of charging microsoft $1,000,000 per day seems 
like extortion. I endeavour to see the DOJ to put an end to what 
appears to be nothing more than an attack on a prosperous company. 
(Prosperity being a key factor that differentiates America from 
almost every other country on Earth.)
    Thank you for your time,
    Mark Stephens CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010807

From: John Muckleroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:02pm
Subject: U.S. Government persuing Microsoft
    John Ashcroft, Attorney General
    I think that it is downright sinful the way the government is 
persuing Microsoft. I see it as just another case of jealousy on the 
part of the competion, with the government acting as ``Big Brother'' 
to keep the bully from getting any bigger. We consumers don't need 
``protection'' from Microsoft. We come closer to needing protection 
from the Government. I think that there is a lot of truth to that 
line I heard some time ago, and it goes like this. ``If Bill Gates 
had contributed more money to Bill Clinton's political war chest, 
there would not be a lawsuit in progress at this time. The states 
that are backing this suit are just looking for money, and that is 
all there is to it. They didn't deserve any money from the Tabocco 
settlement, and they don't deserve any from this.



MTC-00010808

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:12pm
Subject: Comments
    Microsoft continues a pattern of anticompetitive practices 
designed to thwart competition on the merits, to deprive customers 
of a choice between alternative technologies and products, and to 
exclude Microsoft's competitors from the general marketplace. The 
initial suit concerned the monopolistic practice of Microsoft, to 
purposefully do whatever it took to make sure significant market 
participants distributed and used Microsoft's product instead of a 
competitors--including paying some customers, and using its unique 
control over Windows to induce others to do so Microsoft has made 
clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse its 
operating system monopoly to artificially exclude competition and 
deprive customers of a free choice. As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's 
Group Vice President in charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in 
the New York Times: ``We are going to cut off their air supply. 
Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free.''
    Since the release of the '95 OS version, through to the XP OS 
release, Microsoft's conduct has not changed. Where any competitor 
appears to threaten Microsoft, either through outright purchase, or 
by 'giving away' similar functionality artificially bundled with the 
OS, Microsoft strives to prevent market alternatives to Microsoft's 
products from gaining any foothold in the general marketplace. 
Microsoft's conduct regarding competitor products has been and, if 
not restrained, will continue to stifle competition, to extend and 
to maintain Microsoft's Windows operating system monopoly.



MTC-00010809

From: Kevin Ulland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Ulland
6453 139th Place NE #41
Redmond, WA 98052
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. I fully support the settlement between the nine 
states, the DOJ and Microsoft. I don't believe Microsoft is a 
monopoly that has abused it's power, and Microsoft hasn't ever hurt 
me, the CONSUMER. But that's not what's at issue here.
    I believe that the settlement that the DOJ and Microsoft agreed 
to is fine. It not only tackles the anti-trust ``violations'' but 
also addresses the market and Microsoft's role therein. I am happy 
to see that nine of the eighteen states have signed on, but I am 
frustrated by the remaining states who wish to proceed with the 
trial. I have a question about those nine states.
    I live in Washington State. I am happy with Microsoft, I like 
Windows XP and it's features. I use Passport and love the fact that 
it's integrated into the OS. It saves me time! I love Internet 
Explorer. It renders beautiful web sites, and being a web developer, 
it's a great application. Netscape is non-compliant with the standards 
and mis-interprets code all of the time, creating ugly sites and 
interfaces. I DON'T want Microsoft to stop innovating. I want the 
next version of Windows to be even more rich with features. If 
Massachusetts or California go into the hearings in March and get 
extra sanctions or limitations applied to the deal with Microsoft, 
those limitations had better not effect me here in Washington, or 
any of the other 41 states! Just because California is listening to 
the special interest groups from Silicon Valley and Microsoft 
competitors and NOT it's consumers, that should not affect me in my 
state. I remember my US history, and I remember that we all started 
out as separate states, like little nations, and we created a 
federal government to over see national issues. But laws passed in 
California do not apply in any other state, and I am hoping that a 
ruling against Microsoft for California, or the other nine states 
only applies in those states. If California law can't affect me here 
in Washington, why should a ruling for California affect me as well? 
Will a ruling for the nine states affect the other 41?
    Please answer this question, because I think it is vitally 
important that as a consumer I know what is going to happen to 
Microsoft and the software I use in my life and work. It is wholly 
unacceptable that these nine states' problems with Microsoft affect 
the rest of the nation. The settlement with the DOJ can affect all 
of the states, because it is an agreement with the Federal 
Government...
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, Kevin Ulland
    [email protected]
    Citizen of Washington State
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Ulland



MTC-00010810

From: Frank Danaher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:08pm
Subject: Dear sir
    Dear sir
    Please settle the MicroSoft law suits as soon as possible.
    These issues do not belong in the law courts and represent an 
attempt by the various state departments attorney general to enrich 
the state at the expense of the the company involved. Please try to 
do something to move law suits such as these out of the Department 
of Justice arena and back to the companies that are involved. We 
need less and not more oversight by your department regarding 
commercial conflicts.
    Frank Danaher



MTC-00010811

From: Steve Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end the persecution of the Microsoft Corp. 
Microsoft has done much more to help the consumer and help the 
American economy than they have ever done to hurt it. It is time to 
stop wasting taxpayer money and end this action bby the Justice 
Dept. I support the current settlement that is on the table to bring 
this to a close.


[[Page 25365]]

    Thanks!
    Steve Brown
    Reynoldsburg, OH



MTC-00010812

From: Shanmugam, Karthik
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the terms of the proposed settlement.



MTC-00010813

From: Ron LaPedis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It it please the court, I would like to commend the 9 dissenting 
states 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 address) is mistyped. 
Microsoft MUST be reigned in as a convicted monopolist, or there 
will be no choice whatever left for consumers.
    The settlement worked out for dismissal of the class action 
cases alleging overcharging by Microsoft shows Microsoft's arrogance 
and contempt for the law. This settlement would have helped 
Microsoft crush Apple in the education market where Apple is still a 
competitor. Since when is the loser of a case allowed to settle in a 
manner which benefits it. Better that Microsoft be forced to 
distribute coupons for free software to the customers it allegedly 
overcharged. But I digress here.
    I sincerely hope that you will work with the dissenting state 
attorneys general to create 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



MTC-00010814

From: Tim McMullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As a PC user, I believe Microsoft must be broken up to allow 
competitors back into the market. Please force a spin-off of all MS 
business other than a basic operating system. The spun off unit(s) 
should work totally independently, with the same rights and 
privileges that all other applications developers get. This will re-
enable competition and truly stimulate `innovation'.
    Thanks
    Tim McMullen
    4615 Sidereal Dr
    Austin, TX 78727-5129
    (512) 837-9366



MTC-00010815

From: kaydan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has for many years used anti-competative practices to 
corner the market and stifle the progression of the industry. Over 
the past 10 years they've released around 10 different operating 
systems. All of which have had some level of incompatibility with 
one another and make it almost impossible to produce an application 
that will work on their next platform's release. When a market 
exists that they wish to control they either add the feature free of 
charge (driving companies like Netscape out of business), or if they 
wish to control a standard they create their own standard and cut 
support for the currently accepted standard (DirectDraw, .Net, etc). 
Or, in the worst type of situation, they try to fork an existing 
standard to devalue the standard altogether (Java, JavaScript). 
Being that they control a vast percentage of the market, progression 
in the computer industry has actually regressed in many ways in the 
last 10 years.
    Sincerely
    Daniel Bermender



MTC-00010816

From: landon kelsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:30pm
    In a monopoly, there are explicit and implicit acts that are 
illegal and bad for the USA.
    *Explicit acts are those such as the many aggressive acts of 
conspiracy by Microsoft brought out early in the suit.
    *Implicit acts are those such as the inability of small 
companies to keep up with a company (MS) that can throw 1000 
programmers at a project. Norton Antivirus, for example, could be 
destroyed overnight.
    I personally like .NET and C# and it may be the best idea yet, 
but MS is still not the US National Software Co.
    If you don't believe me, look at the service you get from your 
local telephone company. Many festering sores are left over from a 
monopoly. A truly putrid bureaucracy left over from a monopoly.
    Two types of monopoly. . .a vertical trust and a horizontal 
trust Vertical. . .example McDonald's could have farms that raise 
beef and everything else including restaurants Horizontal. . 
.Safeway (unlikely due to inherent poor management) could own every 
grocery store



MTC-00010817

From: John Longthorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:38pm


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This attack on Microsoft, and the economy, has gone on too long. 
Please concede that this suit should never have been brought to 
court and bow out gracefully. The DOJ suit has most likely cost 
America and its citizens more in lost wealth and economic security 
than the Enron fiasco. Times are bad enough without our own 
government trying to stifle job creation and wealth accumulation.
    Microsoft is in a tough business and needs support rather than 
hindrance.
    Thank You,
    John and Marilyn Longthorne
    18 W. Sage St.
    Pine Haven Wyoming, 82721



MTC-00010818

From: Seven
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:43pm
Subject: Re: proposed settlement
    I strongly feel the existing proposed settlement with Microsoft 
does little to redress the manifest imbalance in the operating 
system marketplace or address the monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft.
    The playing field needs to be leveled. The existing proposals 
don't do it.
    Morley Chalmers
    for the 7Office team
    [email protected]
    416/926-9296



MTC-00010819

From: Duane Odom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that this settlement will do little to change 
Microsoft's behavior or restore competition. The sttlement fails to 
curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware programs 
including browsers, media players, and instant messaging software 
into the monopoly Windows operating system and it is ambiguous and 
subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it lacks an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Microsoft is a monopoly and has used that monopoly position to 
force others out of business or to bend to fit their desires. This 
affects people's freedom to choose among alternatives. It affects 
the price people must pay, directly or indirectly. It also has 
longer-term implications for prople's privacy and security. It means 
less innovation and lower quality software.
    Thank You,
    Duane Odom
    Duane Odom
    3035 Barnes Ln.
    Cottondale, FL 32431
    (850)352-2229
    [email protected]



MTC-00010821

From: Jim Robertson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  1:59pm
Subject: FW: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
    I received the following email message. I am only writing to see 
if it is a legitimate use of my time (or the people I forward this 
to) or is it a hoax? Is the DOJ seeking public comment? I receive so 
many ``form/chain'' 


[[Page 25366]]

letter via email, I never know what to believe 
anymore.
    Thanks for you time.
    Jim Robertson
    Olympia, Washington
From: Marsha Richards [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
    Dear EFF Friends,
    As you know, 18 states and the federal Department of Justice 
(DOJ) have been involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft. Recently, 
the DOJ announced it has negotiated a settlement agreement with the 
company (one of America's most successful). The settlement must be 
approved by the federal judge in the case before it can take effect, 
and the DOJ is currently seeking public comment.
    The case against Microsoft has greatly harmed Washington 
citizens. Stock values, not only in Microsoft but in the entire 
NASDAQ, have dropped dramatically and consumers overwhelmingly agree 
that allowing the case to end with this settlement is good for them, 
the industry, and the nation's economy.
    Please consider sending a letter, fax or email to the DOJ to let 
them know what you think about the settlement. The deadline for 
comment is January 28, 2002. I'm including a sample letter below 
along with the contact information you'll need. Please feel free to 
edit it as you see fit, or write your own.
    I would recommend sending your comments by email or fax since 
mail has had difficulties lately. Also, if possible, would you let 
us know if you decide to send a letter? We'd like to measure the 
impact. Thanks very much.
    Cordially,
    Bob Williams
    President
    Evergreen Freedom Foundation
    P.O. Box 552
    Olympia, WA 98507
    (360) 956-3482
    [email protected]
    [Contact Information]
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
    Fax: (202) 307-1454--OR--(202) 616-9937
    [Sample Letter]
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,



MTC-00010822

From: Bob Mileti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:04pm
Subject: Don't buy the Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US Dept. of Justice:
    Please do not allow Microsoft to settle this case with such a 
self serving plan. They have cost me and my small company untold 
amounts of money due to poor products and total lack of support. 
Furthermore I'd like to have all the money I spent for programs that 
I never wanted in the first place, but were forced to pay for from 
Dell and Gateway.
    Make it hurt and make it hurt good.
    Thank you,
    Bob Mileti



MTC-00010823

From: T. Ron Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:10pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Litigation
BlankRenata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
[email protected]
    I'm fed up. This is litigation that never should have been filed 
in the first place. It has stifled innovation, severely damaged the 
economy, and impacted or will impact the majority of technology 
companies in the USA for decades. Anti-trust laws are in place to 
protect CONSUMERS not COMPETITORS. Consumers do NOT, and never did, 
support this legal fiasco. I urge you to put this outrageous waste 
of taxpayer money to bed. Get it settled and get on with real 
business.
    I am encouraging all of my colleagues to contact you as well.
    Sincerely,
    T. Ron Davis
    25424 NE 39th Way
    Redmond, WA 98053
    T. Ron Davis
    President/CEO
    iRequest, Inc.
    http://www.irequest.com
    Tele: 425-643-1771
    FAX : 425-898-9726
    ``Empowering the Consumer Through Information''



MTC-00010824

From: Richard Saul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:12pm
Subject: Settlement in Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Microsoft wields enormous power in the computer industry. They 
are able to share software and computer hardware development. I have 
been a software engineer for twenty years and I have seen Microsoft 
grow from ``micro'' to huge.
    Microsoft has a long-standing practice of including new features 
that directly compete with another company's software into the 
Windows operating system family. They brought this practice with 
them from the DOS operating system.


[[Page 25367]]

    Microsoft has done used this exact practice with:
    1. Memory management, inclusion of Expanded Memory Services 
killed Quarterdeck's QEMM.
    2. Disk Compression, inclusion of disk compression wiped out 
Stac Electronics Stacker.
    3. Fax Services, by including fax capability Microsoft has 
reduced the market for WinFax.
    4. Remote Control software (like PCAnywhere) is an example that 
has just been introduced in Windows XP. Microsoft will enter a 
market with a very low priced product because they have the scale of 
economy to afford to dump the product at a loss. They do this until 
they have wiped out their competitors.
    This has been done with:
    1. Access, Microsoft introduced Access for $99 at a time when 
databases commonly cost $500.
    2. Internet Explorer, Microsoft gave IE away when Netscape cost 
$40 to buy.
    3. TCP/IP network access. Microsoft gave away free TCP/IP 
software when ordinarily it cost $350 or more.
    4. The XBox is a current example of this product. Microsoft 
``subsidizes'' their competition and includes other company's 
products into Windows. This might appear to be in a company's best 
interest but in fact it limits the company's ability to succeed 
because of the contractual obligation they are under.
    1. HyperTerminal
    2. Citrix
    Last and maybe worse Microsoft manipulates standards to their 
benefit. 1. Java as a language was standardized by Sun Microsystems, 
Microsoft introduced a ``Java'' product with different features that 
competed against Sun's standard.
    2. Microsoft formulated the Internet Explorer web browser to 
understand the HyperText Markup Language different than Netscape; 
web developers had to choose between developing for one, the other 
or both.
    Microsoft has delivered incredible value for its customers. I 
have no doubt. But they have done that over the dead bodies of 
dozens of competitors. Microsoft's ability to create a new operating 
system version and be the only company to deliver productivity 
software for the platform is almost the heart of their advantage. 
Take it away!
    If you look at every major Microsoft OS introduction of the last 
10 years, Microsoft always delivers a new version of Office 
simultaneously. They are the only company that can and their 
competitors spend the next year catching up. Stop this!
    The only way that true competition can be restored is if 
Microsoft's Operating System group is torn away from the 
Applications group. Break Microsoft up! Breaking Microsoft up into 
at least 2 and maybe more companies is the only way to restore 
competition in the software market. I bet if I wrote this in 
Microsoft Word you could read it, but if I wrote it in Lotus WordPro 
you couldn't!
    Rich
    Richard Saul, Engineer
    POS Development
    Kinko's Field Support Organization
    [email protected]



MTC-00010825

From: Walt Perko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:12pm
Subject: OS vs. Advertising portal?
    Aloha,
    I love Windows. However, my fear of MS has been growing with the 
growth of the Internet and Internet Portals. I don't want to upgrade 
to Windows XP for fear of a marketing blitz and a filtered Internet 
in it's very near future.
    It should be written some basic laws of the Digital Domain--
1.email falls under the same rules and procedures as snail mail 
2.Operating Systems should be just that and no more, not attached to 
a `Profiler' or `Advertising Portal' unless we get the OS AND 
UltraBandWidth `New Global Network' access FREE like broadcast TV. I 
should be able to do a search on the Internet like it was the Oxford 
English, American Heritage etc? Dictionaries and all the 
Encyclopedia's combined etc?
    I should be able to do a search on the Internet and find a 
mailing address, email address, phone number etc. of anybody in the 
world. NO UNLISTED ENTRIES!
    I should be able to be connected to the Internet and see who is 
connected to me at ALL TIMES!
    I've been looking at Linux, it's not ready for prime-time yet, 
but getting close--but how much will it cost to move some of my very 
expensive software to run on it??? I'm hoping for a newer and better 
OS than Linux.
    Check my creativity on iFilm.com and MP3.com . . . My goal is 
simple. To live a good life and know I've learned what is important 
to life and it's meaning . . . Walt Perko
    It's not the bulls and bears you need to avoid--it's the bum 
steers.--Chuck Hillis
    Whoever values peace of mind and the health of the soul will 
live the best of all possible lives.--Marcus Aurelius
    Great people talk about ideas. Small people talk about other 
people.--Tobias S. Gibson
    The person who makes a success of living is one who sees his 
goal steadily and aims for it unswervingly. That's dedication.--
Cecil B. De Mille
    The person who goes farthest is generally the one who is willing 
to do and dare. The sure-thing boat never gets far from shore.--Dale 
Carnegie



MTC-00010826

From: Himani Naresh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft lawsuits have been a waste of taxpayer dollars and 
a huge burden to our IT sector. They have dragged on too long and 
should be settled as soon as possible. Having said that, I think the 
settlement is in the best interest of the American public because it 
will allow Microsoft to focus on its own business and the IT sector 
to return to normal Some of the terms of the agreement are a little 
harsh on Microsoft, but overall I think they are fair. Consumers and 
software developers have to be happy that Microsoft will be 
disclosing internal interface technology, and designing future 
versions of `Windows' so that other vendors can promote their 
products from within the OS.
    The nine states that are in opposition to the settlement are 
just showboating and should be reprimanded at the federal level. 
They have no right to continue this suit, which should not be 
handled at the states level anyway. Please stop the nine states from 
furthering the deterioration of our IT sector. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Himani Naresh
    5306 Lake Washington Blvd. #H
    Kirkland, WA 98008



MTC-00010827

From: Gideon Yuval
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:20pm
Subject: settlement
    It would seem to me high time that that old MS lawsuit were 
finally settled.
    Thanks
    Gideon



MTC-00010828

From: Susan Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:21pm
Subject: Judge Kollar Kotell
    Judge Kollar Kotell-
    I am writing to express my concern about the Justice 
Department's handling of the Microsoft case. I understand that the 
Tunney Act allows review of this decision, and I would like to 
express my concern about increasing Microsofts power and monopoly 
through this decision. My understanding is that every court decision 
regarding Microsoft and its antitrust/monopoly activity has found 
that Microsoft abused its monopoly position to prevent competition 
and restrain free trade. These decisions have been found repeatedly 
in the judicial system over the past three years. I am very 
concerned that the Department of Justice is not punishing Microsoft 
nor moving to stop this behavior. It presents significant risk to 
free trade and other competitors to allow Microsoft to use their 
monopoly power to hold customers hostage and reduce their product 
choices. This sets a dangerous precedent. I believe Microsoft should 
be penalized for its long-standing antitrust abuses and prevented 
from exhibiting this behavior in the future. Other products/
technologies/compaines are at risk for their very existence if 
Microsoft is allowed to continue this anticompetitive behavior 
(products based on Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac, etc).
    I hope you will take this under consideration in your decisions.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely-
    Susan P. Gibson
    Susan P. Gibson
    President--Eve Group Inc.
    1004 Windermere Avenue


[[Page 25368]]

    Menlo Park, CA 94025
    ph 650 326-8073
    fax 650 326-8073
    cell 650 888-2646



MTC-00010829

From: Bill Zipfel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The corrupt and criminal Clinton administration is thankfully 
over and the Executive Branch has been returned to honor. Because of 
the staggering turpitude of the Clinton administration, there is 
much work yet to be done to root out the continuing disgrace that it 
was. One large item on that list must be the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. I strongly support the settlement. Successful 
entrpreneurs who create thousands of jobs and add real value to our 
world ought to be praised and emulated, not sued and mocked.
    Bill Zipfel



MTC-00010830

From: Patrick H. Corrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the DOJ settlement was a gift to Microsoft, not a 
punishment. Like the previous settlement DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft it only prevents behavior that is moot because the damage 
has been done and also allows practices that will tend to strengthen 
Microsoft's grip on the computer industry.
    In every instance in which Microsoft has gained domination of a 
market segment innovation has ceased and prices have risen. 
Sometimes the price increases have been hidden in upgrade costs and 
changes to licensing terms, but the have increased none the less. 
Little new software is being developed because potential developers 
and investors know that if a new product is successful Microsoft 
will use its monopoly power to take over the market for that 
product. Microsoft is now using its might to make sure it dominates 
and controls the Internet.
    Please find a way to reign them in.
    Patrick H. Corrigan
    [email protected]



MTC-00010831

From: Jerry Burgen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  2:25pm
Subject: Settlements
    Howdy,
    Thanks for handling the Microsoft judgement this way. It bodes 
good for us all. In essence, what we've got here is that if I am 
found guilty of breaking any law of these United States, that if I 
don't agree with the outcome, that I also have the right to sit down 
with the prosecution and work out a solution that is agreeable with 
me, despite what the laws state, correct? Thanks for setting the 
precedence, this means that every supposed lawbreaker in the future 
will have the same opportunity to self adjust their punishment that 
you have given Microsoft. I'm sure that they will be glad to hear 
it. Oh, and does that also apply to the people that have broken laws 
in the past, ie. racketeers, smugglers, etc? Keep up the good work.
    Jerome Paul Burgen
    Honest Citizen of These United States
    [email protected] CC:`jburgen(a)mediaone.net'



MTC-00010832

From: Bill Buxton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I feel sold out. I can not fathom by what degree of 
righteousness the DOJ can possibly think that a settlement of a few 
billion dollars constitutes justice. I have been around, or in, the 
computer industry since 1980 when I took my first programming class. 
Over the years I have watched with sadness as one company after an 
other has sought to dominate (control) the industry. My greatest 
hopes were on Microsoft as they seemed to talk the talk of equity 
and fairness. Then, from my own experience, I learned that they were 
one of the worst offenders. They have sought the advantage of every 
loophole and trick to market their products and control competitors. 
I have even felt they broke the law in several instances where they 
sought to extend and embrace competitors, or persuaded companies 
that it would not be wise to market competing technologies.
    The bottom line is that what they have done is illegal and 
immoral. To punish them with a simple fine draws short of preventing 
them or other companies from doing the same in the future. Microsoft 
should be broken up into smaller companies (OS, Desktop 
applications, Back Office or application integration, and web 
technologies) so that they do not have the ability to wield such 
influence to stifle future competition.
    PS My view are my own and not those of the company I currently 
work for.
    Bill Buxton
    Web/App Developer
    Miller Heiman Incorporated Tel:(775)827-4411 x257 [PST]
    1595 Meadow Wood Lane Fax:(775)827-5517
    Suite #2 mailto:[email protected]
    Reno, NV 89502 http://www.millerheiman.com
    http://www.millerheiman.com/>
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010833

From: Jane Griscti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:31pm
Subject: Settlement of little or no benefit to consumers
    To the average user there is only one operating system available 
for PC's ... Microsoft. Most users are not even aware there are 
options. This is more than just `branding'; MS has successfully 
wiped out any consciousness of choice in the operating system 
market. Their success places developers in a bind; if most of the 
installed base is MS then they must write applications for MS. Often 
these applications don't have the newest feature displayed by MS 
developed applications. This in turn pushes consumers to use MS 
applications and MS NEVER writes applications for non-MS platforms.
    Developers end up in a Catch-22 situation. The consumer doesn't 
become aware of competing products because the hot applications get 
written for MS first then MS releases a newer `hotter' application 
taking advantage of the latest MS operating system bells and 
whistles (known about by MS internal developers) and the external 
developers play catch up. In the end, the MS operating system 
becomes the only playing field; one slanted heavily in MS's favour.
    Application and Middleware development need to be spun off in to 
an independent company. As well, the new company should be 
encouraged to write software for non-MS operating systems as well as 
MS systems. Not only will that open up the operating system playing 
field but also the application software field. Then maybe consumer's 
will begin to learn that PC does not equal MS.
    Jane Griscti
    [email protected]



MTC-00010834

From: Pam Dvorak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2'32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement/Comments inder the Tunney Act
    The attached file contains my comments on this settlement. Thank 
you-Pamela J. Dvorak
    Pamela J. Dvorak
    612 Woodleave Road
    Bryn Mawr, PA 19010-2921
    610-526-2216 / fax 610-526-2886 / [email protected]
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am pleased that the Microsoft Antitrust case has finally 
nearing completion. After three years of litigation, it is time. 
Microsoft can once again focus on what it does best- product 
development, driving a successful business.
    The broad range of the settlement [restrictions and obligations 
on Microsoft that extend products and technologies not even at issue 
in the original lawsuit] represents Microsoft's willingness to bend 
backward to see this case rectified and settled. With Windows XP, 
Microsoft has already carried out modifications listed within the 
agreement, making it easier for computer makers, software developers 
and consumers to reconfigure their Windows setup at any time. In 
addition to that, Microsoft has also agreed to supply to the 
competition its protocols used to operate Microsoft's server 
operating system, allowing opposing software companies to make their 
products compatible, should they choose to do so.
    Microsoft's compliance will be monitored carefully, thus 
precluding future violations. This may be `preaching to the choir', 
but I never felt that the company should have been punished for 
being competitive- and doing well. The American way is for the 
market to judge the value of the product. Not everyone 


[[Page 25369]]

can be on top. From my view, this Operating System made this 
technology user-friendly and accessible to a great segment of 
the population. Thank you in advance for your support of this 
[dare I hope] final settlement. Sincerely,
    Pamela J. Dvorak
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum Senator Arlen Specter



MTC-00010835

From: Stephen Marney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:33pm
Subject: I don't like the proposed MSFT settlement
    No, not one little itsy bit, I don't!
    You guys aren't doing your jobs as far I'm concerned.
    Stephen Marney



MTC-00010836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft--another word for dictatorship
    I would like to present a few comments regarding the proposed 
settlement offered by Microsoft Corporation in its court case. I 
firmly believe that Microsoft Corporation has a committment to a 
policy of world domination in the computer realm. All the past 
actions of Microsoft indicate that the company has an embedded 
policy of control of the computer and computer software industies to 
the end that Microsoft products will be the only products available 
to the computer using world.
    Microsoft has engaged in manipulation of software functioning 
and content through financial actions such as purchasing the rights 
to programs and then supressing the functions and content by 
deliberately denying those functions and content to computer users 
by not including those functions and contents in Microsoft products. 
Functions and content have also been altered so that they will not 
perform as originally created to perform, or have been so altered 
that they will not perform in any venue except a Microsoft venue, 
thereby denying their usefulness to the computer using public.
    An example of these actions is plainly visible in the recent 
information release of the proposed WMA programs and devices. WMA 
programs are designed to deliberately alter MP3 sound files so the 
files will no longer perform properly on an MP3 device. The 
resultant WMA converted file will only perform properly on a WMA 
device and cannot be reverted back to its original form because of 
the proprietary programming that Microsoft has created.
    This move, creating a completely incompatible MP3 alteration 
program, indicates that Microsoft Corporation intends to invade the 
MP3 device market with an overwhelming effort. The intention could 
be to eliminate all MP3 market devices and replace them with WMA 
devices which are the intellectual and marketing property of 
Microsoft, thereby creating another monopolistic situation.
    Microsoft Corporation will attempt to assuage the concerns of 
individuals and government offices by stating that their devices 
work in conjunction with PC format computers and are an enhancement 
for those devices. Microsoft will not admit that the MP3 alteration 
program is irreversible or that it will be made available to the 
buying public as a ``loss leader'' sale item. Microsoft Corporation 
should not be permitted to continue its policy of domination through 
repression and denial. Microsoft should be forced to reveal the 
source code being used in its programs so that free enterprise 
developers will have the opportunities to create products and 
software that competes freely with Microsoft products.
    Microsoft should be forced to separate the functions of software 
program creation and computer operating system production to enable 
private enterprise development of competing products.
    The penalty phase of this issue should be made effective against 
Microsoft and cause the corporation to make appropriate redress of 
the wrongs it has already committed. Microsoft should not be 
permitted to continue to defraud the government and the courts by 
``giving'' Microsoft products and software to a market area that 
Microsoft has not had a history of effective past presence. Allowing 
Microsoft to buy its way out of any penalty by ``donating'' outdated 
and refurbished equipment and software to schools is not an 
effective penalty. It only allows Microsoft to freely establish 
itself in an area and provides further domination of the computer 
market by creating a situation where children would be exposed to 
only Microsoft products and programs. This would help to create 
another market segment, the children become future Microsoft product 
users through their introduction and indoctrination to those 
products while in school, which would ensure the monopoly that 
Microsoft is attempting to continue.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. I hope that a 
sensible and proper adjudication of the monopoly suit will be 
reached and that proper penalties will be assessed against Microsoft 
Corporation for its egregious business practices.
    Ronald Steinke
    701 Bradford Court
    Chico, CA 95926-8768



MTC-00010837

From: HP Authorized Customer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:35pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General:
    I think people are after Microsoft because Microsoft is a 
successful company and has plenty of money. Why penalize success?
    I notice ever since the government started with charging 
Microsoft with wrongdoing we've been in a recession.
    Microsoft wanted to donate one billion dollars and they don't 
think that's enough. Give me a break!
    Respectfully yours
    Richard Diamond
    CC:Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network



MTC-00010838

From: Jacy Odin Grannis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Your Honor; Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I am writing out of deep concern about the proposed settlement 
plan. It is my contention that the settlement focuses on remedying 
what are, in the end, minor issues and does not begin to address the 
larger issue of Microsoft's true impact on the competitive 
landscape.
    As noted in the findings of the court, Microsoft is a monopoly. 
The most damaging aspect of this is Microsoft's ability to 
unilaterally set de facto standards for the computing industry. 
Microsoft argues that by so doing, it is acting in the public 
interest. Certainly standards do benefit the industry, but it is 
also certainly not true that Microsoft is uniquely capable of coming 
up with the best standard. In fact, it is easy to demonstrate that 
Microsoft is not truly using this power to improve matters for the 
consumer, but to further extend its own monopoly. For example, 
RealAudio was one of the first products to offer streaming media for 
the Internet. It would not be a stretch to say that, at one time, it 
was the de facto standard. Microsoft saw that it was behind in the 
game, but rather than working to improve the standard that existed, 
it came up with its own proprietary standard that would require the 
use of its products and which would only run on Windows. Not only 
that, but it began to bundle its own player as the default player 
with Windows. Now, while Microsoft's Media Player may, now, be 
technically the match of other media players, but at the time it was 
not. However, consumers have demonstrated time and time again that 
what matters most to the majority is not technical superiority, per 
se, but convenience. Thus, though Microsoft's player might not have 
been the best; it was already there, and more or less did the job, 
so they consumers used it if they could. If Microsoft did not have 
this huge advantage, however, it is very questionable whether their 
product could have survived. Nonetheless, it did, and now RealAudio 
is engaged in a pitched (and, it seems, losing) battle to get users 
to use its products.
    There are other very similar examples such as Netscape, Outlook 
Express, and MSN Messenger. In each case, Microsoft started behind 
the competition with an inferior product. However, by bundling their 
product with the operating system and by, in effect, dumping their 
product for free, they overtook other competitors whose main revenue 
was selling a competing product.
    Microsoft Office is another huge cornerstone in the monopoly. It 
has, itself, become a standard. It helps reinforce the Windows 
monopoly. Anecdotally, and speaking only for myself, I can say that 
I have become very frustrated with Windows over the past several 
years. It is not nearly as stable as I would like, and it has too 
much baggage that slows it down. However, I find that I am unable to 
drop it entirely and go to Linux (which is a technically superior 
system) largely because I use Microsoft Office, and it is not 
available on Linux. I am certain that I am not the only person in 
that position, though I can not offer statistics to 


[[Page 25370]]

demonstrate what sort of population I represent. However, the point 
remains that there is a demand for other operating systems. An 
independent company would likely want to meet that demand, to give 
users the software they want on whatever platform they want to run. 
But Microsoft, which has become a monopoly in so many areas of the 
software industry, has a disincentive to meet that demand. Rather 
than develop new versions of their programs for other operating 
systems, they continue to develop almost solely for Windows. Their 
statements to the contrary, this is not because of any technical 
superiority enjoyed by Windows. Their only motivation is to further 
the Windows monopoly.
    In the end, these examples become self-reinforcing. Microsoft 
Windows enjoys a monopoly position in the operating systems market. 
Microsoft develops new standards that require the user to be running 
Microsoft Windows. It pushes these standards and creates new 
monopolies by bundling its technologies with the operating system. 
It enjoys other monopoly positions with other products, such as 
Office. It concentrates its development of these products mostly or 
exclusively on Windows (Microsoft's support of the Mac is laughable, 
and only exists to give it a chance to say they aren't doing what 
they're doing). This reinforces their Windows monopoly. Since users 
have to have Windows to run software they need, such as Office, they 
use Windows. Other companies know that users have to be running 
Windows, so they develop for it. This furthers the OS monopoly of 
Microsoft. In the end, though, everyone but Microsoft loses. They 
can dominate any market they enter by virtue of their sheer size and 
position. All the other companies are forced to scrape along in 
niche markets because they can't really compete with the position 
Microsoft has built for itself.
    The proposed settlement fails to remedy this situation. Even 
with the settlement remedies in place, Microsoft will still be able 
to bundle new products and technologies in to Windows, stifling 
competition. Indeed, this is currently going on. Microsoft has 
decided that it does not want to support Java because it does not 
have proprietary control over it. So it has created a new language, 
C#, as a competitor. Their whole .NET strategy is a prime example of 
Microsoft using its position to further its monopoly. And there is 
nothing in the settlement that will prevent them from continuing to 
pursue this strategy.
    What, then, is the remedy? First of all, Microsoft must be 
broken up. Windows should become its own company. Office should 
become its own company. And the rest of Microsoft's products should 
go in to a third company. Secondly, Microsoft should be forced to 
devote equal development resources to developing its applications, 
especially Office, for an alternate platform. Preferably this would 
be Linux, but the Mac OS X would do as well. Thirdly, Microsoft 
Windows source code should be released to the public. Not as free 
code, but on an open source license that allows people to see the 
code for free, but requires them to pay a license fee if they want 
to use it. Finally, the different companies that emerge from 
Microsoft should be forbidden from entering into any collaborations 
with each other whatsoever for a period of five years.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jacy Grannis
    Senior Software Engineer
    Questia Media, Inc.



MTC-00010839

From: Westly.Schmidt@bankofamerica. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I strongly oppose the proposed final judgement because it:
    Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft 
was found to have illegally protected;
    Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community;
    Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to 
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
    Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging 
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
    Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it 
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. Furthermore, Microsoft is 
a monopoly and has used that monopoly position to force others out 
of business or to bend to fit their desires. This approach is 
EXTREMELY destructive to business where competition is in the best 
interests of everyone (except Microsoft) involved. The the proposed 
final judgement is a joke, a slap in the face to anyone with enough 
education or expierence to know what they are trying to get away 
with. It is pure ignorance, or a desire to profit from the demise of 
our society, that would enable anyone to accept the terms of the 
proposed final judgement as being just. For everyones sake, 
including (albiet, against its will) Microsoft's, do not accept the 
proposed final judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Westly Schmidt



MTC-00010840

From: Ron (038) Tynna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:40pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Ronald Davis
412 S Vine Street
Wichita, KS 67213
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
Washington, DC
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As I read the paper, I get more and more concerned over the 
status of our economy. Since I know that the technology industry has 
a great deal to do with the status of our economy, I get concerned 
over items like the recent Microsoft developments. I was obviously 
surprised to find out that Microsoft is being delayed even further. 
After three years of negotiations, it is ridiculous to dissect this 
agreement any further. The governments of the US and Kansas State 
have many other things to worry about, and should not be wasting 
our resources on a battle that has already been won.
    The terms of this agreement have not only been well thought out, 
but include many substantial changes to which Microsoft has agreed 
to. Some of these changes include business-related topics such as 
licensing and marketing, but even extend to engineering, design, and 
documentation of intellectual property. As we let these terms speak 
for themselves, we allow the IT sector to work together and focus on 
maintaining our place in the global market. This is important to the 
consumer, our technology industry, and our economy as a whole.
    Help support our technology industry. We need to get back to 
business and continue with the innovation that has made us great. 
Please help stop any further action against this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Davis



MTC-00010841

From: Santiago Alfaro Tornero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Escribir estas notas en castellano. Creo que sobre todo lo 
relacionado con el caso Microsoft hay una cuesti?n clave: para que 
se cree tecnolog?a y haya investigaci?n, que cuando se aplique lugar 
a avances para todos, es crucial tener campo donde trabajar e 
innovar. Lo que tristemente est? ocurriendo es que Microsoft est? 
comprando cualquier innovaci?n que se produce en el campo de las 
tecnolog?as de la informaci?n en cualquier lugar del mundo, y con 
ello, hace que muera la ilusi?n de las personas por dise?ar algo 
nuevo ya que pasa a pertenecer a Microsoft. Si hay un pa's en el 
mundo que entiende el valor de las personas por luchar por algo 
propio, ese es Estados Unidos.
    Si seguimos as?, va a ser tan dif?cil invertir en Tecnolog?as de 
la Informaci?n que nadie lo va a intentar, y con ello va a perderse 
la impresionante innovaci?n que proviene de las personas y las 
empresas peque?as con capacidad de crear nuevas formas de hacer. No 
creo que sirvan para nada estas l?neas, ya que lo que mueve el mundo 
son los intereses ego'stas de grandes conglomerados industriales.
    Me conformo con recibir una notificaci?n v?a correo electr?nico 
de que alguien por lo menos ha le?do estas l?neas.
    Muchas gracias.



MTC-00010842

From: Christian BAYER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I think it is very apparent the proposed Microsoft settlement 
neglects some significant areas. It does nothing to; prohibit the 
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, spark competition 
in the software industry or deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains. 
I believe the judicial system is required to insure these types of 
remedies are made when violations of anti-trust laws occur. I 


[[Page 25371]]

believe the evidence of Microsoft's gross disregard for conducting 
itself in a legal manner and the costly detriment consumers have 
suffered should compel an attempt to uphold the law rather than 
brushing it aside, as seems to be happening. Other concerns 
regarding the exposure of children to Microsoft's products are 
additional issues. If the judicial system does not seek to enforce 
the laws of the United States, what pupose does it serve?
    Christian Bayer



MTC-00010843

From: Isaac Ordonez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that allowing Microsoft to push it's monopoly into 
schools as punishment for it's monopoly is down right stupid. This 
company get away with murder and needs to be punished fully. I think 
the original ruling to break up the company allow companies with 
actually working products to flood the market. Please do not allow 
Old bill to rule my Microwave, Video games, Computer, TV, Internet, 
Car, and even bed. They are taking it too far and should stick to 
making an OS and office suite.
    Isaac Ordonez
    Technology Support Specialist II
    San Rafael City Schools



MTC-00010844

From: Andre Azaroff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement the DOJ has made with 
Microsoft. It does nothing to punish or prevent any of the predetory 
business practices Microsoft has been found guilty of.
    I also feel it is deplorable that the judicial (and apparently 
the executive) branch of our government is for sale and has been 
bought. Also that it is for sale only to a select few now that the 
republicans are back in power. Yes, the republicans who supposedly 
pride themselves on being the law and order group in washington. I 
guess the old addage is true that the law only applies to those who 
can't afford it. The end result of your current actions in this case 
ceartainly show that anyone with enough money or clout or 
connections may choose to ignore any law they see fit (whether or 
not the law is just is a different matter, it still is a law) and 
that once a verdict is haded down, if the defendant disagrees with 
it, he may negotiate a different verdict. This is very disturbing. I 
would hate to think that this lawsuit will now be cited as precedent 
in criminal cases allowing murderers and rapists to be able to 
negotiate lesser sentences.
    The settlement negotiated with Microsoft will do nothing to 
curtail their unfair business practices. Particularly the Microsoft 
``TAX'' everyone pays for buying a new PC. The tax I am referring to 
is the licensing that is added to allmost all new PCs sold, even if 
there are absolutely no Microsoft products installed on them. This I 
find particularly disturbing. Since the PC manufacturers have 
absolutely no recourse or protection from Microsoft's ability to 
pull their windows license without any infractions to their business 
arrangement with Microsoft. I could go on (point by point) but I 
feel I have expressed my opinion.
    Andre Azaroff
    St. Onge Company
    1400 Williams Road
    York PA 17402
    Phone: 717 840-8181 ext. 8075
    Fax: 717 840-8182
    Website: www.stonge.com



MTC-00010845

From: Michael Sean Goppold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since Microsoft got away with illigally bundling middleware 
programs, and is a monopoly, further distribution for the next few 
years of Microsoft Windows Operating Systems should be prohibited 
from containing such bundled middleware programs, either through 
discount or use of freeware.
    Hardware vendors must give at least 5 choices other than MS 
Windows, with full interlopility of its hardware.
    Other than that, the proposal I feel does do a lot for the time 
being. I agree with most of the terms of the proposal. Since 
Microsoft's monopoly is illigal, in case that after the duration of 
the Judgement Microsoft still has ways to run a monopoly on the 
software scene, perhaps a more generic, more widely applicable set 
of rules for competitive software distribution will be necessary.
    Thanks for considering my opinions.
    Mike Goppold



MTC-00010846

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:02pm
Subject: No Deals for Bill
    Its incredible to see how some want to continue to coddle Bill 
Gates and Microsoft. This is the biggest antitrust case since 
Standard Oil. Instead of considering ways to extend their monopoly 
into the education system, we should be formulating ways to remove 
their unfair advantage and punish them for their predatory, 
imperialistic business practices. A couple of suggests: open source 
the operating system code; break up the company by OS, Applications, 
Development Environments and Internet; and apply punitive damages 
commiserate with past damages and future earnings of its victims. 
Here's a chance to put real competition back into the software and 
operating systems business, don't blow it!



MTC-00010847

From: Gregory Brewer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Brewer
1227 SW 149th Lane
Sunrise, FL 33326
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory A. Brewer



MTC-00010848

From: Jon Viscott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon Viscott
8581 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90069
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers? dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.


[[Page 25372]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jon Viscott



MTC-00010849

From: Jo Ann Sedars
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jo Ann Sedars
3714 North Shore Drive
Clear Lake, IA 50428
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jo Ann Sedars



MTC-00010850

From: Penney Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Penney Williams
4946 Mathews Ave
Indianapolis, IN 46227-4223
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Penney Williams



MTC-00010851

From: Lucia Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:19pm
Subject: Bonanza
    The proposed ``punishment'' for Microsoft seems, in fact, to be 
a marketing bonanza for the company that facilitates the sort of 
non-competetive actions the firm is to be sanctioned for. This makes 
absolutely no sense whatsoever, and will simply assist Microsoft in 
killing the competetion for once and for all--and far more rapidly 
than they could on their own. The existence of other operating 
systems such as Apple and Linux is essential for encouraging 
innovation and keeping pricing competetive.
    Lucia Foley
    Lucia Foley
    Director of Communications
    Hampshire Educational Collaborative
    97 Hawley Street
    Northampton, MA 01060
    413-586-4900 x109 / 413-586-0180 fax
    www.collaborative.org
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00010852

From: W. Nathaniel Mills, III
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please read my note below originally sent to Richard Blumenthal, 
AG, State of CT. Thank you,
    Nat.
    Forwarding...
    Monday, January 14, 2002 3:16 PM
    To: ``W. Nathaniel Mills, III'' [email protected]>
    cc:
    Subject: Re: Thanks for not supporting DOJ cave-in to M$
    ``W. Nathaniel Mills, III'' wrote:
    It makes me proud to reside in a state not affraid to seek 
justice, regardless of the potential political fallout. Please 
continue to pursue litigation against Microsoft. They have done so 
much to constrain innovation in the personal (and now business) 
computer marketplace, it would be a shame to see them walk away with 
little more than a slap on the wrist. The first question investors 
ask small technology companies seeking funds is ``what will you do 
when Microsoft replicates your technology and offers it for free?'' 
How can you counter such a question, unless you believe you have some 
remedy in the courts to be protected from such aggressive, 
monopolistic behavior?
    Best Regards, Nat
    W. Nathaniel Mills, III
    16 Deer Hill Lane
    Coventry, CT, 06238
    860 742 7646
    Dear Mr. Mills:
    Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning 
the Microsoft antitrust case.
    As you know, on November 6, 2001, the United States Department 
of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed settlement. I did not join 
that settlement because I do not believe it would accomplish the 
goals we set when we filed the case. Nor would it accomplish the 
remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of Appeals: (1) to prohibit the 
illegal conduct and similar conduct in the future, (2) to spark 
competition in this industry; and (3) to deprive Microsoft of its 
illegal gains.
    You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal 
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments 
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as 
follows:
    Mail: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    [NOTE: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, 
DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely 
mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that 
comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
    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
    Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
    Thank you again for contacting me.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Blumenthal
    Attorney General



MTC-00010853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to get on with business. Please accept the settlement 
that has been reached between Microsoft, the DOJ, and nine states. 
This bickering is a problem for our economy which is in a tenuous 
state right now. Let it go!
    AGREE TO THE SETTLEMENT ALREADY REACHED AND STOP THE CONTINUING 
PROSECUTION OF MICROSOFT.
    Thank you.
    John Murphy
    109 Pine Wood Lane
    Los Gatos, CA 95032
    John Murphy



MTC-00010854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:31pm


[[Page 25373]]

Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wonder how many millions is being spent of taxpayers money to 
continue the case against Microsoft. Is the government really 
concerned about monopoly now after they have made a ruling, or is it 
just politics and competitors getting their state governments to 
continue on for the special interest of those companies? I am weary 
of it. Let it go and let the people benefit rather than use 
taxpayers money to pay for the competitors wish lists.
    Diane Guildner



MTC-00010855

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02  3:32pm
Subject: ; Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am a 20 year software executive who has had the opportunity to 
both partner with Microsoft and compete against Microsoft during my 
career. As such, I have spent time in Redmond, WA and gotten to know 
firsthand both the culture, and Machiavellian management philosophy 
that has been a legacy at Microsoft.
    In recent days, I have come to know through an ex-colleague some 
of the details relating to the Proposed Settlement made by the 
Justice Department with Microsoft, and to say the least, I am 
displeased by them. This is why I am writing to you today.
    Your Honor, how could the Justice Department grant Microsoft a 
government-mandated monopoly of the software industry and even 
worse--other technology markets? Clearly, this decision would 
seriously jeopardize all competitors--both now and in the future. 
This decision would clearly violate some basic principals of 
Capitalism, such as our right to choose, our right to fair 
competition, fair pricing, etc.
    In closing, your Honor, I submit to you that like never before 
in our Country's history, Microsoft has unequivocally shown itself 
to be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. Their illegal conduct and 
activities (bribing & threatening partners and competitors) have 
been proven time and time again. I would like to see Microsoft be 
brought to justice for the good of our country, our economy, and 
most of all- the good of our people. I like millions of other 
Americans are counting on you, and counting on justice to prevail.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Cortale
    Senior Vice President of Sales
    [email protected]
    Eloquent
    2000 Alameda de Las Pulgas
    Suite 100
    San Mateo CA 94403
    Tel: (650) 294-6474
    www.eloquent.com
    This email may contain confidential and privileged material for 
the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review by others is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please 
contact the sender and delete all copies.



MTC-00010856

From: Ken McFadden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this may concern:
    I am a System Administrator and am appalled by the Settlement 
against Microsoft. Even today, MicroSoft is still trying to impose 
and force Windows products on all users (this is evident in their 
latest OS's in their implementation of MIT's Kerberos and LDAP). In 
today's ``Hell'ter Skelter'' world of terrorism, it is more 
imperative that Corporate America be able to secure their computer 
systems to the highest degree.
    Kerberos is one product that allows that higher security needed 
today regardless of the platform. MicroSoft has once again embedded 
a standard into their OS, but doing what they know best, and that is 
disabling it from working with the true standard. As soon as someone 
devised a solution to higher security along with a means where 
Windows and Unix machines could talk between each other and maintain 
common user ID's and Passwords, Microsoft has to block it and once 
again making it impossible for users to have both Microsoft and Unix 
products together (or impose Microsoft's solutions to enable it to 
work).
    Every Computer Professional in the US is tuned into the issue 
with MicroSoft's Monopoly case, of which we are broken into 2 
groups. One who only uses MicroSoft products and is ignorant to 
their practices. And the other who use both types of platforms. As 
myself, I work for Lockheed Martin, which contracts to the 
Government, and due to reliability and security reasons we are 
required to use Unix on certain applications. MicroSoft continuously 
makes my job harder day to day.
    If Microsoft is allowed to continue practicing these methods 
where one day everyone gets fed-up and moves to Microsoft, thus 
allowing a tremendous hole in our Corporate America and National 
Security. As it is Microsoft products are known to be very buggy. 
Microsoft needs to concentrate on improving the reliability of their 
current products before attempting to mess-up others with reliable 
products in an attempt to block others from making a buck.
    I pray that regardless of what Microsoft may throw your way to 
muddy up the water, you will stay true to what is best for this 
Nation. Personnel opinion is Microsoft should be split where they 
could focus on Operating Systems only thereby improving the product 
for all customers.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth M. McFadden



MTC-00010857

From: Peg and Phil Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the government suit against Microsoft has gone on 
long enough. It has been very expensive and we fail to see how it 
has served the interest of the public.
    Sincerely,
    Philip & Margaret Walker
    2435 Felt Street #118
    Santa Cruz CA 95062




MTC-00010858

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE SETTLEMENT IS VERY FAIR-UNDER ATTORNEY JANET RENO CLINTONITE 
INVESTIGATIONS WERE STOPPED WITH OUT JUST CAUSE REOPEN ALL.THIS 
LIBERAL THINKING CAUSED 911.ONLY A COMMUNIST THINKS GOVERNMENT 
SHOULD CONTROL A FREE MARKET.ARE YOU ONE STOP BEING ANTIBUSINESS AND 
ANTIAMERICAN.AOL CHANGED THE MARKET SHARE WITH PURCHASE OF NETSCAPE 
AND THE CONSUMER WAS NOT HURT.IT IS TIME FOR YOU ALLEDGED EDUCATED 
PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND STOP BEING A CLINTON FOOL.BILL GATES 
AND THE INTERNET ARE AMERICAS NUMBER 1 INDUSTRY AND HE IS LEADING 
THE WAY AND THIS MAN WILL STAY AT HIS SIDE ALL THE WAY AND THEN 
SOME.ONLY ONE QUESTION ARE YOU7 A VETERAN IF NOT SIT DOWN AND ZIP 
THE LIP LIBERAL-I AM PROUD TO BE A REAGAN REPUBLICAN AMERICAN BORN 
VETERAN WHOSE FAMILY CAME HERE IN 1742 AND LEAD THE WAY WITH 
COMPETITION AS PRESIDENT LINCLON STATED A SOCIETY LIKE OURS MUST AN 
SHALL REMAIN FREE.AS A GRADUATE IN BUSINESS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED ACCEPT THE DEAL DECERTIFY THE 
CLASS ACTION FROM THIS POINT WHERE THE REMAINING IDIOTS PAY FOR 
THEIR STUPIDITY.FOR THE RECORD I NOTE JIM RYAN ATTORNEY GENERAL FELT 
THE DEAL WAS ACCEPTABLE.THIS MAN WILL BE REWARD FOR HIS 
UNDERSTANDING YOU CAN ADDRESS HIM GOVERNOR JAMES RYAN-THE GOOD RYAN-
END OF THIS STORY AND GOD GETS THE GLORY-END THIS UNAMERICAN ERA NOW 
AND THAT GENTLEMEN WILL BE THE ORDER-ASK SLICK WILLY WHAT HAPPENED 
TO HIS LAW LICENSE AND LEGALLY HE ADMITTED LYING WHAT ABOUT THE RENO 
GROUP WE AMERICANS WANT THE TRUTH AND THIS IS A DEMAND TO REVIEW 
JANET RENO AND ALL THE LAWYERS UNDER HER SUPERVISION FOR ANY AND ALL 
RICO VIOLATIONS BECAUSE THEIR SEEMS TO BE AN APPARENT MISCARRIAGE OF 
JUSTICE AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.START THGE INVESTIGATION TODAY 
WIRTHOUT HESITATION THANK YO



MTC-00010859

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in the best interest of our national and international 
economic enterprises that Microsoft is allowed to continue to bring 
innovative value to consumers through the content of it s products 
and services while also providing existing and new business 
opportunities for the global economic good.



MTC-00010860

From: [email protected]@inetgw


[[Page 25374]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the suit against Microsoft to be over. The 
Justice Department should accept the settlement and encourage all 
the other States to do the same so that our economy can recover.



MTC-00010861

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What the courts came up with is fine. Let's get on with 
business.



MTC-00010862

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s been resolved. Get on with it.



MTC-00010863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the past ten years I have been President of a high tech 
university in Michigan. Earlier in my career I practices anti-trust 
law in Washington DC mostly before the FTC and the DC Circuit. I 
believe the proposed settlement should be approved. While it is more 
than the law requires and is ill advised it will at least put the 
matter behind us. The anti-trust laws are intended to protect 
markets and consumers not competitors. Regardless of proven 
monopolistic behavior there has been no showing of harm to markets 
or consumers. When viewing the loci of the Ps this remaining 
prosecution itself sounds of champerty on the surface and its 
sanctions threaten the vitality of technological innovation in this 
country which will put us at a global competitive disadvantage. My 
attorney general saw the importance of this competitiveness to 
Michigan a state which is key to keeping America economically strong 
and agrees with my recommendation.



MTC-00010865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As I am not a stockholder in any of the companies involved I don 
t think I or the government has any business in this matter at all. 
The consumer me has more power than Microsoft and the government put 
together. We are not threatened or endangered. You are being used.
    S.



MTC-00010866

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I support the settlement crafted between 
Microsoft and the US DOJ. I dont feel the case was warranted from 
its inception. Millions of taxpayers dollars have been unjustly 
spent in a lawsuit that was targeted at protecting the competitors 
of Microsoft not consumer best interest. I do believe that some of 
Microsofts licensing practices and their heavy-handed approach in 
working with OEM system builders were in question. The trial and 
settlement did make progress in that area despite the process being 
in efferent at accomplishing these specific goals. After being in 
the technology industry for well over 12 years now I can honestly 
say that the actions of the DOJ did not reflect the best interest of 
consumers the technology industry or this nation as a whole. At this 
point in time proceeding with the settlement and curtailing the 
actions of the remaining litigation against Microsoft would be the 
best action taken for all involved.
    Sincerely
    Jason S. Harrison



MTC-00010867

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This country is so much better off because of Microsoft s 
development of software that everyone can use. It is because it is 
easy to use and because just about everyone who works with computers 
uses commom software that Micorsoft has been so successful. This is 
not monopolistic! Settle and let Microsoft and their competitors get 
on with developing new and even better software instead of spending 
so much time on this suit.
    John DeWolf



MTC-00010868

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally think the economy has been greatly effected by the 
government s attempt to break up microsoft. It appears to me that 
the people who work hard and are successful or that contribute 
anything to society are punished for their efforts. It is time the 
producers benefit for a change and in the process the people as a 
whole will benefit. I say it is time to let this thing go.



MTC-00010869

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough you ve gotten your pound of flesh from 
MicroSoft. And their competitors are seeking the elimination of 
MicroSoft because MicroSoft was a leader in the Field and they want 
only to use the Government to get Microsoft out of their way.And the 
TAX payers are tired of footing the bill even if you claim the 
Litigants are footing all the costs. There could be better use of 
the Judges time on more pertinent cases.



MTC-00010870

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

    i hereby strongly endorse this settlement. thank you



MTC-00010871

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Discontine any further action against Microsoft.



MTC-00010872

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To R. Hesse People with more education than I have come up with 
the decision on the Microsoft thing and therefore it must be as 
close to the fairest of outcomes concerning everyone effected. I 
suppose in another 20 years or so we ll really know.



MTC-00010873

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle with Microsoft as soon as possible. enough is enough. Let 
private enter- prise live thrive and be free of government control.



MTC-00010874

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I guess you can call it a win for Microsoft but I call it a 
compromise in Capitalism and Freedom. The US was founded on the 
principles of Capitalism and Freedom and we should strive to 
maintain those principles. When IBM ran the PC show and everything 
you bought had to be IBM compatible no one complained except for the 
consumers. Microsoft came along and made a better product much 
cheaper and easier to use and suddenly we have a problem...we have a 
monopoly not unlike IBM had but because some politicians are in IBM 
s pockets the DOJ was suckered into taking a communistic act.... We 
have to breack up Microsoft Because of this action the US economy 
was thrown into a recession. The suit can argue all they want but 
many of us knew when we heard of the DOJ s plans exactly what would 
happen. If I were to cause such an action that would affect the 
entire country I would be in prison. A win for Microsoft? Maybe. We 
will see.



MTC-00010875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it concerns: Prolonging the case against Microsoft is a 
waste of tax payers money. This litigation has gone on long enough. 
Microsoft s compeditors should take the money they are spending to 
prolong this litigation should be used to improve and research 
products to compete with Microsoft. They are sore losers because 
they didn t come up with the ideas first.



MTC-00010876

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25375]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement with Microsoft is VERY appropriate. I am 
tired of competitors who are not willing to work at competion tying 
up our court system only to cause a higher cost to the consumer. Let 
s see the courts start working on some real issues!!!



MTC-00010877

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft offer for selletment shoud be accepted and a closure 
to this case. The case is slowing down industry.



MTC-00010878

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let the verdict stand. Our Gov.hounded the Auto Industry 
so that Imports are taking more and more market share. Let s NOT 
REPEAT!



MTC-00010879

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair. Any company in the past had the 
opportunity to come up with an operational system if they had wanted 
to the only one was linux who has a lot of faithful followers. This 
agreement allows competion from all who want to participate. Do 
whats right and settle it now.



MTC-00010880

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the decision stand as it is presently settled. Sincerely 
Andrea Belz



MTC-00010881

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: It is with great regret that I see this problem is 
not fully resolved. As a senior citizen and retired living on income 
derived from investments it is of the utmost concern that this 
problem is finally resolved. Although I personally would not have 
agreed to the terms of the agreement they being very bad for an 
industry based on inovation since Microsoft feels they can continue 
to support the public under these restrictions the matter should be 
settled for the good of the consumer and the country.
    Fred Budukiewicz



MTC-00010882

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the finding of the DOJ and support finalizing the case 
as is. I sent two page fax last week explaining why.



MTC-00010883

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The last thing our economy and the entire high tech sector needs 
is more uncertainty and regulation.
    Please settle this lawsuit and end the persecution of Microsoft. 
This litigation has caused more financial hardship to thousands 
(probably millions) of stockholders and to the economy than anything 
Microsoft could ever have done. It s time to move on and let 
Microsoft get back to the business of doing what they do best--
making life better for all of us. Klara Hunt



MTC-00010884

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave the man alone he has done more for the computer world and 
everyone else is jealous of it this is a free enterprize country isn 
t it. What a waste of money the people of this country has had to 
spend to do all of this court bussiness on MS.



MTC-00010885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this misguided suit against Microsoft. The 
computer industry has benefitted greatly by Microsoft there is no 
reason to continue to persecut this company. Stop wasting Microsoft 
s and our country s time and money and end this suit. Sincerely 
William M. Hopper



MTC-00010886

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s my strong belief that this settlement is in the best 
interest of everyone--the technology industry the economy and 
especially consumers. Since the settlement newspaper editorials from 
across the nation and across the ideological spectrum have endorsed 
the settlement. Microsoft competitors shouldn t be holding up this 
settlement. We can t allow greedy companies to hold up progress.
    Sincerely
    Cosmo Stallone



MTC-00010887

From: sthompson292811MI@ comcast.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a sad day for american businesses and the gerneral public 
if the courts of this land allow competitors to sue because they can 
not build a better mouse trap and courts order a these companies 
from building better mouse traps. Where would this country be today 
if the courts stifiled every inventive thought just because somebody 
else yelled foul. Stop this insanity now and get this country back 
on the road that was laid out for use by our founding fathers.



MTC-00010888

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this on-going legal battle. A society that 
chooses Capitalism believes in an ecomomic system marked by a free 
market and open competition in which goods are produced for profit 
labor is performed for wages and the means of production & 
distribution are privately owned. Microsoft is a formidable 
competitor that is to be admired. May the best company with the best 
products & services succeed!!



MTC-00010889

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Take the settlement with Microsoft! I m so sick of this dragging 
on--for what? Some jealous competitors who whine? Focus efforts 
where it s really needed not in the already-competitive world of 
technology.



MTC-00010890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please approve the settlement made between the federal 
government and various state attorneys general with Micrdosoft. 
Enough already!!!



MTC-00010891

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not attempt to change the current court decision of Nov. 2001



MTC-00010893

From: Chris Norloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I find the 
proposed settlement weak, and not in the customers' best interests. 
The proposed settlement will not ensure competition in the 
marketplace, and will not restrain Microsoft from further 
monopolistic practices.
    thank you,
    Chris Norloff
    508 N. West St.
    Falls Church, VA
    22046-2517



MTC-00010894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Penalties
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed settlement 
being considered in the case against Microsoft. Not only will the 
settlement in its current form do nothing to restrict Microsoft's 
monopoly, it does not 


[[Page 25376]]

actually punish the corporation for a crime of 
which it has already been found guilty. Therefore, the settlement 
should include components that force Microsoft to open its 
documentation so that other companies can design software to make 
the computer industry truly competitive. This is the reasoning 
behind antitrust laws, is it not. Furthermore, Microsoft must be 
stopped from including their software as a prepackaged part of 
virtually every personal computer on the market these days. I chose 
not to use the Windows operating system and was extremely distressed 
when attempting to buy a new computer that I had to subsidize 
Microsoft with the purchase price of my computer since I could not 
find one in any mainstream store that did not come with Microsoft 
software pre-installed. This is an intolerable and monopolistic 
practice that should be stopped. As a concerned consumer, citizen 
and someone interested in the fate of information technology, I 
humbly ask that the proposed settlement be reconsidered so that it 
will indeed prohibit Microsoft from retaining its monopoly in the 
computer industry. Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick D. Murphree
    1015 N. College Ave,
    #1
    Bloomington, IN 47404



MTC-00010895

From: Terri [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:52pm
Subject: accept settlement
    Reed and Terri Dow
    12302 NW43rd Court
    Vancouver,WA 98685
    360-574-9641
    A HREF=``mail to:terridow@ aol.com''>[email protected]/A>
    U.S.Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division
    601D Street, #1200
    Washington,DC 20530
    Email:A HREF=``mail to: [email protected] 
''>[email protected]/A> January 14, 2002
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the rule of law. 
Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the proposed 
settlement make the core of their objections a call for more 
stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they call 
'product tying' to breakup of the company. More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for 'tying' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court'drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.'
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation -the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMsto preserve visible access 
to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to 
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    Reed and Terri Dow



MTC-00010896

From: Frank Baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:52pm
Subject: Objection to the settlement
    As a member of the computing industry, I do not see how the 
proposed settlement even comes close to providing remedy for the 
antitrust violations committed by Microsoft. This company has 
continually removed competition using their OS monopoly, raised 
prices for inferior products, and forced consumers to pay for 
software that they do not use nor want. Despite this, the settlement 
fails to address these issues, nor any of the other issues they were 
already found guilty of in a court of law.
    Although I understand that the events on 10/11 may cause some to 
think a quick settlement, no matter how weak, is a service to the 
country. I completely disagree. Forcing consumers to pay a Microsoft 
tax will do nothing to promote the economy. The proposed changes to 
their operating system will reinforce their monopoly, forcing 
consumers to pay even more charges for transactions that only 
Microsoft will be able to broker.
    I urge you to reconsider this settlement now, before it is too 
late.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Baxter
    CTO Synthesys Technologies, Inc.
    65 Stansel Court
    Springboro, OH 45066



MTC-00010897

From: nharding%[email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Bush administration in calling for a settlement in 
the Microfost case.
    Nathaniel Harding
    Norman, Oklahoma



MTC-00010898

From: Pete Norloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
proposed settlement is weak and not in consumer's or the country's 
best interests. The proposed settlement will not ensure competition 
in the marketplace, and will not restrain Microsoft from further 
monopolistic practices. Further, the proposed settlement fails to 
extract ill-gotten gains that Microsoft has obtained illegally.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Norloff
    10820 Miller Road
    Oakton, VA 22124
    703-938-4343



MTC-00010899

From: David Schaub
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  3:41pm
    I would like to voice my concern about Department of Justice's 
settlement with Microsoft.
    David Schaub
    4507 Hollow Oaks Dr.
    Chapel Hill, NC 27516
    [email protected]



MTC-00010900

From: Frank Vitello

[[Page 25377]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D. Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    This will serve as the comments of Defenders of Property Rights 
on the settlement agreement that the Department of Justice has 
proposed in its antitrust litigation with the Microsoft Corporation. 
Settlement of the litigation with Microsoft is in the best interest 
of all parties involved to avoid prolonging a questionable case, 
which seemed to be initiated more with the anticipated remedy of a 
multi-million dollar settlement as an objective than sound antitrust 
policy. Moreover, as our comments below discuss, settlement of this 
litigation is in the public interest.
    Settlement of This Lawsuit Will Bring to An End A Lawsuit That 
Was At Odds With The Constitution's Protections of Intellectual 
Property. When the Constitution was ratified, the framers 
highlighted the importance of protecting intellectual property 
rights. In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution authorizes 
Congress to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts, by 
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive 
right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' U.S. Const. 
art. I, ? 8.
    Moreover, all property rights, including that of intellectual 
property, were given further protection by the Fifth Amendment to 
the U.S. Constitution, which states: ``no property shall be taken 
for public use, without just compensation.'' U.S. Const. amend. V. 
The purpose of the Fifth Amendment is to ensure that property owners 
have the right to possess, use and profit from their property, 
whether that property is tangible in the form of a family farm, or 
intangible in the form of a computer operating system. There is no 
question that a bulk of Microsoft's vast assets is comprised of 
intangible intellectual property, commonly known as patents, 
copyrights, trade secrets, brand names, market presence and 
intellectual know-how. In its zeal to enforce the antitrust laws, 
however, the Justice Department has apparently forgotten the 
Constitution protects all forms of property, including Microsoft's 
intellectual property.
    Antitrust Enforcement Should Enhance, Not Undermine The 
Constitutional Protections of Intellectual Property. In its 
antitrust litigation with Microsoft, the Justice Department has 
proposed that Microsoft be broken into smaller pieces or that 
Microsoft should be forced to fully or partially relinquish its 
intellectual property rights to competitors. In addition, the 
Justice Department has suggested that Microsoft be forced to 
disclose its ``source code,'' or the software blueprint for its 
operating system, Windows, which some consider to be the ``crown 
jewel'' of the software industry. Such disclosure would allow 
competitors to gain access to immediate updates on the Windows 
system so they can also release their updated software at the same 
time that Microsoft releases a new Windows version.
    Since competitors, on average, usually release a new product a 
year after Microsoft releases a new Windows version, the 
government's plan would preclude Microsoft from, for a limited time, 
profiting exclusively from the fruits of its labor and investment--
which strikes at the heart of the free-market economy. If the 
government were to have its way, not only would it be destroying the 
free-market principles on which this country is based, but it would 
also be taking private property for public use, without payment of 
just compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment's guarantees. See 
Kimball Laundry v. United States, 338 U.S. 1, 3-4, 11 (1949) 
(holding that loss of intellectual property--skilled management, 
good will and advertising--was taken and just compensation due: 
``[T]he intangible acquires a value . . . no different than the 
value of the business' physical property.'').
    Microsoft has indeed been successful in the use of its 
intellectual property rights. However, Microsoft entered the 
industry thirteen years ago, when computer software and related 
technological investments were risky financial undertakings. As 
such, Microsoft earned its wealth as a result of its original ideas 
and innovative technological breakthroughs in the computer software 
industry. Thus, by virtue of the patent and copyright laws, the 
reward to Microsoft for the creation of its intellectual property 
rights has already been weighed against the rights of its 
competitors. To force Microsoft to give up its hard-earned property 
rights, and the reward resulting therefrom, is not the valid 
enforcement of antitrust laws, but an uncompensated taking of 
private property.
    In short, the Microsoft antitrust litigation has posed various 
legal and constitutional barriers for the government. Defenders of 
Property Rights applauds the current administration in its efforts 
to put an end to the lawsuit. We agree that now is the time to 
foster the growth of American companies and to encourage the 
innovative, entrepreneurial spirit of Americans, and not to continue 
to selectively pursue the innovators of our country, at all costs--
at the expense of the economy, the consumer and our Constitution. In 
sum, Defenders strongly encourages the Justice Department to approve 
the proposed settlement agreement and finally put an end to its case 
against Microsoft.
    Yours truly,
    Nancie G. Marzulla
    President, Defenders of Property Rights
    Frank A. Vitello
    Defenders of Property Rights
    1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 410
    Washington, DC 20036
    202. 822.6770
    Toll Free: 866. 630.9787
    202. 822.6774 facsimile
    www.yourpropertyrights.org



MTC-00010901

From: Joe Maranto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

    I have attached my thoughts on the above referenced settlement 
for your consideration. Please let me know that you have received 
this letter. Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Joe Maranto
    Joseph V. Maranto
    8 Graveswood Court
    Baltimore, MD 21234-1451
January 14, 2002
BY FAX 1-202-307-1454
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to ask that you give your immediate approval to the 
agreement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I 
believe this settlement is fair and equitable for the country and 
for business alike. Microsoft has done as much for the computer 
trade and its users as Goodyear has done for auto production. 
Microsoft is the wheels and fuel that make computers work.
    With all due respect, I believe the antitrust suit brought 
against Microsoft was unnecessary and unfounded. Personally, I use 
Microsoft Windows out of choice because Microsoft's software 
programs are the best on the market. It is my understanding that 
Microsoft has agreed in the settlement to assist the computer 
industry by opening up its intellectual property rights to its 
Windows internal interfaces, and license its property on a non-
discriminatory basis. This is bound to stimulate the economy and do 
great things for the entire industry.
    In conclusion, I am asking you to allow Microsoft to get back to 
business without this cloud and legal case as a major distraction to 
its daily business of developing the best software in the world.
    Respectfully Yours,
    Joseph V. Maranto
    VP Cignal Mortgage Corp



MTC-00010902

From: sharpe jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft
120 Greensview Dr.
Madison, MS 39110-8854
601-856-2950
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 14, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There appears to be an opportunity to settle the Microsoft 
antitrust case now. In view of all the other pressing matters facing 
us, I would urge you to finalize the Microsoft case as soon as 
possible. My request is not made because I like Microsoft, but 
because I feel they were shaken down by the previous administration. 
Their crime was standardizing and promoting software that the entire 
world liked and used- except for a few of their competitors! These 
products increased US productivity greatly and the price was 
reasonable.
    It was a very sad day when the Clinton DOJ attacked one of the 
crown jewels of American 


[[Page 25378]]

technology and helped accelerate the 
decline in the US equity market. I pray you will do the right thing 
and close this bad chapter as soon as possible. Thanking you, I 
remain
    Sincerely,
    John S. Jones



MTC-00010903

From: jack williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft
    The purpose of this letter is to express my ardent support for 
the settlement reached last November between the department of 
justice and Microsoft. As a corporation, Microsoft has done more for 
the technology industry than any other corporation in American 
history. In turn, the litigation against Microsoft for the past 
three years is matched by the decline in our once prosperous 
technology industry. This coincidence must not be underestimated.
    The settlement shows much compromise between the two sides of 
this issue. Microsoft has agreed for the creation of an outside 
technical committee. Under the stipulations of the agreement, this 
committee is to come as an outside third party. The purpose of this 
committee is to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement. 
This technical committee, then, will assure the efficacy of the 
agreement.
    I hope you will consider the plight of the technology industry 
when reviewing this settlement. Thank you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Jack E. Williamson



MTC-00010904

From: Kelly McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I've been involved in computer centered physics curriculum 
development for more than 6 years, and have used both Microsoft and 
non-Microsoft operating systems, development tools, and 
applications. I am deeply by the proposed settlement, and i would 
very much like to to see Judge Kollar-Kotelly address these flaws. 
What is included:
    1. A five-year limit. Microsoft's antitrust begotten profits 
have accrued over a decade of illegal monopolistic practices. Five 
years seems inadequate to restore the marketplace to a level of 
normal competition. Even if the settlement didn't provide mechanisms 
(noted below) which Microsoft can use to hamper the implementors of 
the proposed settlement, the enforcement period should be at least 
equal to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. Also, certain 
structural elements of a sound settlement should probably be 
enforced in perpetuity.
    2. Microsoft's voice on the technical committee. It seems 
unreasonable for a confirmed monopolist to choose its guards. Given 
the pervasive influence of Microsoft in the market, and its 
persistent monopolistic behavior, it is dubious proposition at best 
that their chosen representative, and representative who can be 
vetoed by that person, will primarily have the interests of the 
public at heart. Watchdogs chosen by Microsoft, on the Microsoft 
payroll, and working fulltime in secrecy on the Microsoft campus, do 
not meet any reasonable criteria for impartiality.
    3. Crafting a feature that allows Microsoft to dispute costs 
gives Microsoft a built-in mechanism for sandbagging. Quote: 
``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.'' Given the vast wealth Microsoft has obtained by 
monopolistic abuses of the consuming public, setting enforcement 
expenses as ``reasonable'', and giving Microsoft a mechanism for 
subpoenaing their overseers is an invitation to trouble. Microsoft's 
bearing of the ``expenses'' of such activity will be trivial, and 
more than compensated by the implicit protection of any future 
monopolistic behavior concealed from the technical committee. It 
also allows Microsoft to run out the clock at a very cheap cost. The 
technical committee should have a free hand, and an unlimited budget 
underwritten by Microsoft.
    4. Microsoft has implicit control over who is permitted to be 
their competitor. Quote: ``(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business...'' Why does Microsoft get to apply the 
litmus test of the ``authenticity and viability'' of who is 
permitted to see their API's? Quote: ``Microsoft shall disclose to 
ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the 
Microsoft Developer Network (``MSDN'') or similar mechanisms, the 
APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware 
to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. ``
    Doesn't Microsoft have control over who participates in their 
proprietary MSDN program, and don't they set criteria of 
participation (eg, nondisclosure, etc)? This is one of the very 
mechanisms by which Microsoft has implemented its monopolistic 
strategy. Such APIs should be *freely distributed* to the *public*, 
not sold to the few acceptable competitors that Microsoft 
designates, on terms of their own setting. Allowing Microsoft to use 
their MSDN mechanism and decide which business is authentic and 
viable is too weak. It specifically gives Microsoft a mechanism to 
exclude open source developers, academics, etc.
    What is left out:
    5. Recompense. Microsoft has illegally profited for years from 
its monopolistic practices. That money rightfully belongs to the 
public, and should be returned to the public. It should be 
fairly straightforward to measure the average profitability of their 
nearest competitors vs. Microsoft's illegally enhanced profit 
margins, thus determining how much Microsoft illegally profited. 
Perhaps this money could be funneled into educational grants for 
computer hardware and (completely non-Microsoft) software for 
elementary, secondary, and college tuition. These funds should 
easily cover the expense of putting (for example) a MacIntosh 
computer on the desktop of every student in public schools, state 
universities, etc.
    6. Punitive damages. Over and above returning the ill-gotten 
gains to the public, Microsoft should be penalized for their illegal 
activities.
    7. Document formats. Microsoft enforces its monopoly by keeping 
its file formats proprietary. Since Microsoft chooses which 
competing operating systems to support with their applications, 
companies who have been monopolistically pressured into buying 
Microsoft applications (eg, MS Office) are trapped on the Microsoft 
platform by their inability to migrate their (proprietary and 
copyrighted) corporate data to other operating systems. This is key. 
Microsoft applications compel users to stick with Microsoft 
operating systems, this perpetuating their monopoly. The only remedy 
would be to open up their file formats (or possibly to require them 
to provide fully and publicly documented import/export features that 
allowed users to migrate *all their data* (including ``objects'' 
such as forms, reports, etc.) to competing products, and to likewise 
recreate data from compliant import files (even if created by 
competing products). In other words, the public deserves a way to 
get all their data out of Microsoft products, and Microsoft should 
pay for providing such a mechanism.
    I've heard the rationale that punishing Microsoft would be bad 
for the economy. Does that mean that we have two brands of justice? 
One for those who commit crimes large enough to endanger the economy 
and one for people who commit smaller thefts? Secondly, the leverage 
Microsoft has in the economy was acquired through illegal 
monopolistic practices, and the judgment should not perpetuate the 
consequences of these practices. Third, monopolists have always been 
bad for the economy, the contrary arguments of monopolists 
notwithstanding. And finally, the amount of money from recompense 
and punitive damages, pumped back into the economy in such a way as 
to stimulate competition in the computer software field, should 
provide an enormous economic boost.
    American citizens are counting on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to 
faithfully perform her solemn duty to uphold justice by preventing 
this weak and flawed proposed settlement from being implemented, and 
properly addressing the true interests of the United States of 
America by returning the ill-gotten wealth from Microsoft to the 
public from whom they stole it, further penalizing Microsoft 
financially, and crafting structural remedies to prevent Microsoft 
from committing the same crimes again.
    Sincerely,


[[Page 25379]]




MTC-00010905

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Its time to let this settlement go through. Greedy attorneys 
should not have more. Its time to let commercial interests work for 
the market--not being tied up in courts. This country was developed 
on free enterprise. This is a good settlement. Thank you.
    Ray Rogers



MTC-00010906

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the agreement between DOJ and Microsoft and end 
the infernal uncertainty that s plagued the markets for years. The 
suit against Microsoft has probably done more to undermine both 
investor confidence and citizen confidence in government than any 
single occurance over past decades. Please put an end to it!



MTC-00010907

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Time for the states attorney generals to call it quits and get 
about the business for which they were elected and stop wasting 
taxpayers dollars. The settlement is more than fair. Competitors 
should not use the government as a crutch.



MTC-00010908

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft are the robber barons of today. they steal from the 
poor or at best pennies on the dollar then claim it as their own. 
they eliminate competition by hiding their operating system features 
until they have announced their own products which corner the market 
before anyone can compete. their contributions to politicians to 
stop their split is pure pay off. do not let them get away with 
this. They stifle creativity stifle a free flowing marketplace by 
blocking others from competing and prevent BETTER products from 
entering the marketplace by their operating system monopoly. Its 
like the Detroit car people always saying they knew what people 
wanted...then the Japanese came along and proved them wrong. 
Microsoft needs COMPETITION to improve and we need an open market 
place to give consumers a better option.
    Microsoft products are buggy crash often and yet they have 
cornered the market because they own the monopoly. This is at the 
core of the anti trust laws. stop them and stop them now.let new 
businesses grow and thrive by preventing them from their continued 
cornering of the market place and the flooding of same with mediocre 
products.



MTC-00010909

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the Microsoft antitrust case settled now and 
finally. As a consumer of software products (I am a writer of 
fiction and other literary materials) I deeply appreciate the way 
that Microsoft has made my work easier and much less expensive. They 
should not be punished for being successful they should not be 
penalized for making computer technology affordable and they should 
not be made less competitive despite the wishes of their 
competitors. Microsoft competed in the marketplace and won and their 
opponents have tried to trump their triumph by competing 
politically. Those competitors should not get away with that.



MTC-00010910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a proven monopolist and is currently working to 
keep the prices of personal computers and personal computer 
operating systems unnaturally high with their monopoly status. The 
company should be broken up into separate companies for each of it s 
operating systems (a company for MS-DOS Windows 95 Windows 98 
Windows 2000 Windows NT etc) and a company that sells software to 
run on personal computers. Monopolies like Microsoft hurt consumers 
and keep technology out of the hands of the poor and force 
obsolescence on older computers by refusing to support older 
operating systems.



MTC-00010911

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the Microsoft law suit and take the settlement as 
Offered. We think enough is enough!!



MTC-00010912

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please press forward to settle this matter without further 
litigation. I think the settlement agreement is reasonable. It 
should be settled promptly.



MTC-00010913

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the dead dog lie.



MTC-00010914

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel if tech. companies want to develop new and better 
products. They should do so. Let the public decide if they want it 
or will buy it. We have so many regulation I bet their forgotten 
who or when it become law.



MTC-00010915

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time we get off Microsoft s back. Why are we penalizing a 
corporation for being competitive? Because they re successful? That 
certainly appears to be the case. The original argument-- Explorer 
vs Netscape--was decided by customers like me. My ISP provided 
Netscape with its package. I got rid of netscape because it did not 
satisfy my needs. Case closed. My decision. No coercion from 
Microsoft.
    That s why Microsoft has been successful: people like their 
product. When the whiners produce a better product people will buy 
it.



MTC-00010916

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement reached by the Department of Justice is 
fair and equitable and deserves to be approved. Please end this case 
which has been promoted by Microsoft s competitors from the very 
beginning and has nothing to do with harm to consumer choice. Thank 
you James F. Shanley



MTC-00010917

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i feel this was a fair settlement for concerned.i also think the 
remaining attorney generals should settle with what Microsoft has 
offered.



MTC-00010918

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US Justice Dept. and the States Attorney Generals case to 
bring down one of the most successful American companies has hurt 
and is hurting not only consumers like myself . . . but ALL of the 
high tech industries. Competitors of Microsoft who were the 
motivation for this ill advised proceeding have put their self 
interest above the interests of America. This proceeding has given 
our GLOBAL competitors precious time to play catchup . . . providing 
them with the opportunity to steal our momentum as we lead the world 
into the Information Age. Enough is enough!!! Please settle this 
case and lets get back to what we all do best . . . and if 
Microsofts competitors can t compete with better more reliable 
products . . . then that is not Mirosofts fault. Consumers like 
myself will always act in our self interest and buy the superior 
product at the better price . . . thats why today I own windows 
office canvas quicken and other products . . . not all Microsoft . . 
. but the ones I consider the best value. Government should not be 
meddling in free enterprise. Settle this case now so we may get on 
with 


[[Page 25380]]

life! And our 401K s can recover from the justice departments 
tragic fumble. Bill Trask



MTC-00010919

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This was a case that should never have happened. The economy has 
suffered enough because of it let it end NOW.



MTC-00010920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft ALONE the judgment is enough!!



MTC-00010921

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it was fair judgment that was given.



MTC-00010922

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is disgusting from a consumer 
standpoint. It does nothing to improve the climate of competition in 
the Operating System/software sector. Microsoft s contention that 
the status quo allows for improved innovation is patently absurd on 
its face and I think actually this proposed solution will have a 
continuing negative effect on improvement in the software field. 
Microsoft has in the past and continues in the present to attempt to 
block any competitive innovations. They have perverted standards to 
their own benefit and refused to allow others to write software 
which will work well with the Windows OS. They provide crippled 
renditions of proprietary software included with their own in 
attempt to drive competitors from the marketplace. Microsoft have 
made it virtually impossible to purchase a consumer grade computer 
with any operating system other than windows. My own personal 
experience has required me to spend over a thousand dollars during 
the past 5 years for software that I have never used and will not 
use in the future. By requiring that peripheral companies to only 
develop drivers for the Windows OS I am prevented from using many 
pieces of hardware that would make my computers more functional. I 
think the proposed solution should be dismissed out of hand. It does 
nothing to protect consumers and the computer industry in general 
from the monopolistic practices of Microsoft. It contains no real 
penalty for MS and encourages continued anticompetitive practices on 
Microsoft s part.



MTC-00010923

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Too much taxpayers monies have already been wasted on this 
matter and now the whiners want to waste more. It s over let s move 
on . . .!



MTC-00010924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is a win/win situation. Instead of 
a few people getting a few dollars this settlement will provide an 
opportunity for students to have computers in the classroom. It is a 
positive step forward in the No child will be left behind effort of 
this administration.



MTC-00010925

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly for the people. Any action taken against 
it should not be designed to hurt the company which has done great 
things for us but instead to motiviate them to help more. The 
settlement is a great idea and should be allowed to stand.



MTC-00010926

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time to end this suit. From the beginning it was obvious 
that this suit was brought about by a few companies that could not 
compete on a level playing field with Microsoft. So they have tried 
to change the rules to inhibit inovation and creativity so their 
inferior products would be able to compete. As an end user of 
software products I have no allegiance to any particular company. If 
Sun Novell and the others can make a better product I will buy it. 
If they can not I will not. I don t need the government telling me 
what products I should buy or supporting inferior products just 
because they have many congressmen and attorney generals backing 
them in their individual states. In Utah (a Novell owned state) it 
is obvious the only reason they are pursuing this case is to further 
the profits of Novell not the pursuit of justice. If Sun and Novell 
would put as much effort in making better products as they have done 
in trying to bring down Microsoft they may have already produced a 
better product that clearly outsells Microsoft.



MTC-00010927

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is time to settle this case. Our Government has let 
our technology lead slip to Japan. All of the things Americans 
invented and excelled in such as televisions VCR s camera s 
microwave ovens automobiles stereo s machine tool s and many more. 
We have a lead on the World in software let us support and not 
destroy this. It appears a few States Attorney General are holding 
up this settlement to further their own political carriers. Microsoft 
produces the most productive software for our business and home use 
at favorable prices.Lets let them continue so that our businesses 
can continue to have the productivity lead we now enjoy.



MTC-00010928

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This whole thing should never have gone as far as it has. 
Microsoft has done nothing wrong except be the biggest and the best 
at what they do. Compettition is good for the soul of the company. 
There have been many times where this is true. IBM and Xerox Apple 
and Dell. If these companies cannot come out with a better product 
to market to the general public then they don t deserve to be in 
business. If Mircosoft was to be broken up it would just come back 
bigger and stronger than before. All one needs is to look at the 
phone companies like the Bells. They were accused of being A 
monopoly . They were broken up and the came back bigger and 
stronger. So lets leave well enough alone. If the others don t like 
whats going on then like the saying goes if you can t stand the heat 
get the heck out of the kitchen .



MTC-00010929

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We have had enough harassment of MSFT. It s time to knock it 
off! Wrap up the suit against them and let private business get back 
to work not force them to be tied up in litigation!. Stop listening 
to anyone who doesn t like a company and tries to destroy that 
company. Enough is enough.



MTC-00010930

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don t believe it was a good use of our tax dollars. Business 
is business. There are far more important issues to research and 
spend money on.



MTC-00010931

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is the biggest rip-off of 
US industry and consumers that I have ever seen. I cannot imagine my 
so called government agreeing with such a lame settlement. Arquments 
as to the importance of the settlement to the ecomomy are specious 
and in any event untrue. Microsoft broke the law. That conclusion is 
very clear. Last I looked this country punished lawbreakers. 
Microsoft should be severely punished. The proposed settlement does 
not come close to severe punishment. It is possible that top 
executives of the company should be imprisioned-yet there is no 
mention of that possibility in anything I have read. Placing 
appropriate restrictions on Microsoft given that the 


[[Page 25381]]

company is a 
monopoly will only help the US and world economy. Please understand 
that competition is a good thing. Microsoft has clearly been proven 
to be anti-competition and must be stopped. There is no other choice 
if we wish to maintain a society free to make its own choices. 
Indeed a society that actually has choices to make.



MTC-00010932

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are such urgent needs in this country such as public 
education job creation etc... that I can t believe so much money and 
time is being wasted on meddling with business. Microsoft and others 
have created millions of jobs and dozens of markets in this country 
and around the world. Let them continue to do so!



MTC-00010933

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is being punished for success. Microsoft compelled 
noone to buy its product. Leave Microsoft alone and let the public 
decide what it wants by using its buying power. All the states want 
is MONEY.



MTC-00010934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a small (100 share) stockholder I perhaps should not have a 
say but I think we should put it behind us and go on down the road!



MTC-00010935

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am encouraged by the thought of an end to this needless 
persecution of Microsoft. As a developer of software it is a very 
disturbing thought that the federal government can initiate legal 
action in spite of overwhelming evidence of the non-existance of any 
faults. I encourage the final resolution.



MTC-00010936

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is acceptable although it goes further than 
necessry in punishing Microsoft. I feel that the case is still 
tainted by the prejudice exhibited by Judge Jackson from the 
beginning.



MTC-00010937

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is one of the best companies in US history and one of 
the companies that has done the most for consumers. The bitterness 
with which the government is harassing Microsoft is inexcusable. The 
local phone companies are a true monopoly: they treat consumers like 
dogs and use all their might to crush competitors. They are so 
confident the government is looking the other way they don t even 
try to hide. What does the government do to protect consumers and 
competition from the local phone companies? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 
Instead they are bent on destroying one of the best assets this 
country has ever created. Shame on you.



MTC-00010938

From: Joe Barr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  5:19pm
Subject: A few questions
    Do the comments submitted to this email address get forwarded to 
the presiding judge, or do they only get an internal review in the 
DOJ? What is the deadline for comments on the proposed sellout by 
the DOJ?
    Thanks,
    Joe Barr



MTC-00010939

From: rudy petorelli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    Please stop wasting taxpayer money on the Microsoft 
Investigation. Enough is enough.
    Rudy Petorelli
    Naples, Fl.



MTC-00010940

From: Rollo, Dan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm sending my comments regarding the proposed settlement 
involving Microsoft distributing computer hardware and software to 
schools. I believe this will not motivate Microsoft to stop anti-
competitive behavior, and will actually hurt Microsoft competitors 
in the educational market. Also, the settlement does not appear to 
address how to prevent Microsoft from forcing computer hardware 
makers to install only Windows on new machines. The Be Operating 
System was a viable, free alternative OS that was effectively killed 
by Microsoft's exclusive license with hardware manufacturers which 
prohibited the selling of new PC's with any other OS installed if 
Windows was installed on that PC. This represents a clear lack of 
choice for the consumer, that is perpetuated by Microsoft. Current 
Microsoft licensing allows Microsoft to prevent consumers from ever 
seeing any alternative Operating System, and this anti-competitive 
behavior is not addressed in the proposed settlement.
    Finally, the damage done by Microsoft to the Java platform has 
greatly delayed the availability of alternatives to many common 
software programs (i.e. Office productivity applications like Word 
Processors and Spreadsheets) that could run on any OS. By preventing 
consumers from gaining access of alternative OS's and alternative 
Programs, Microsoft is bolstering it's monopoly position. I believe 
any settlement must provide enforceable constraints on such 
practices to prevent more damage to consumers, and I feel the 
current proposed settlement will not provide effective protection 
of consumers and our right to choose.
    Thank You for you attention,
    Dan Rollo



MTC-00010941

From: J-I-T-W-P-M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am Raj Bhatti, the executive director of Freedom Christian 
Trasitional Aftercare at Jesus Is The Way Prison Ministries. I am a 
certified Substance Abuse Counselor by State of Illinoise as well as 
by the World Federation of Therapeutic Communities, New York.
    I came to know through a very close friend about some of the 
aspects of the Proposed Settlement made by the Justice Department 
with Microsoft, and I am very unhappy. Firstly, how could the 
Justice Department grant Microsoft a government-mandated monopoly of 
the software industry and even worse--other technology markets? 
Definitely such decision would seriously jeopardize all serious 
competitors--both now and in the future. We're living in a free and 
open market society, and one of the advantages of having such a 
system is that people have the right to choose from among several 
brands of one single item, and in this case, software. I would want 
to see a healthy competition of several software companies, in order 
to make prices competitive as well. Secondly, how could the Justice 
Department condone Microsoft for violating the antitrust law and 
even for its illegal conduct e.g. bribing other competitors in order 
to stop their operation. What is the Justice Department's motive 
behind this action?
    Your Honor, I would want Microsoft be brought to justice 
upholding to democratic values. Sadly to say that monoplies are the 
trade mark of monarchs and communist governments.
    Very Truly,
    Dr. Raj Bhatti
    P.O. Box 184
    Rantoul, IL 61866



MTC-00010942

From: Mac McNally
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    U.S.--D.O.J. 1/14
    The Microsoft settlement that was agreed upon recently fits what 
is needed for the situation. Any further prolonging the case will do 
just one thing, fatten the already fat pockets of more lawyers. 
There should be no need to go any further than to settle this thing.
    For some reason I do not see Microsoft as the villian that some 
do and in my use of microsoft products, I have always felt I had 
someone to turn to and get aid if needed. It has been a long 
hassle--let it die. F. E. ``Mac'' McNally, Palm Shadows RV--Site 
31--Donna TX



MTC-00010943

From: Robert Anderson


[[Page 25382]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:14pm
Subject: Proposed Anti-Trust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am very alarmed that you have decided to proceed with a 
settlement arrangement that doesn't resolve the issues at hand. 
Having been involved with personal computing since the early 1980s, 
I firmly hold that the bundling approach that Microsoft took was 
truly an attempt to gain monopoly power, and was not done in the 
spirit of innovation, rather, was done to simply enrich MSFT's 
stockholders through unfair competition. Any settlement must not 
only address the fact that Microsoft now enjoys dominance in the PC 
operating system environment, but must also set rigid rules that 
prevent them from doing so again.
    The ultimate, and in my mind, most beneficial antitrust 
settlement would involve a breakup of Microsoft into two operating 
entities, Operating Systems and Applications. This type of breakup 
would ensure that multiple companies could fairly complete against 
one another in a market niche. For example, Lotus 1-2-3 is nearly 
non-existent, despite its initial market share/acceptance. Why? 
Simply put, Microsoft was able to out ``engineer'' them by knowing 
the strategic plans that the Windows operating system group was 
going to take . and to have access to the codebase used to create 
the varying types of Windows. These types of parallels can be drawn 
on nearly any area in which Microsoft has gained a huge market 
advantage over a competitor (word processing, database and so on) 
Having experts at Redmond, overseeing compliance, but having their 
salaries paid by Microsoft also seems like a conflict of interest if 
there ever was one.
    I agree with some in the community that believe that this 
constant cloud over Microsoft's head is a distraction for the 
nation's economic needs. but I don't use that excuse as a way to 
justify a quick, but faulty, settlement. Instead, I urge DOJ to act 
swiftly, but forcefully. Either financially hit the company (by 
forcing payments to consumers for an amount equal to the profits 
illegally generated by the monopoly) or break-up the company in a 
manner that will ensure that there will/would be more competition in 
the application and operating system development areas.
    A breakup, although wrought with some initial complications, can 
be one of the best solutions for the country. as two new high-tech 
firms would be formed from one monopoly. and enterprising companies 
may take advantage of the level playing field when it comes to 
getting ``inside'' information from developers.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Anderson
    2950 Tumbleweed Ln SE #C230
    Port Orchard, WA 98366-2127



MTC-00010944

From: Federico Vezzani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please stop Microsoft's monopoly.
    Federico Vezzani



MTC-00010945

From: Melissa A. Kirby
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please do not allow this interruption in the computer technology 
business to continue any longer. As a citizen of Washington state, I 
encourage you to accept the proposed settlement in the anti-trust 
case involving Microsoft. This settlement is appropriate and 
reflects a triumph of the rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors 
and other critics of the proposed settlement make the core of their 
objections a call for more stringent restrictions, ranging from 
prohibition of what they call ``product tying'' to breakup of the 
company. More extreme critics complain that the remedies do not 
address products that were not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also rejected the 
breakup order and made it clear such an order moving forward would 
be difficult to sustain given the court ``drastically altered [i.e., 
reduced] the scope of Microsoft's liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    Melissa Kirby



MTC-00010946

From: Dana Goldsmith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing to you regarding the Department of Justice's 
Proposed Final Judgment regarding the Microsoft case. Over the past 
several weeks I've had a chance to study this proposed Agreement and 
am shocked by what I've found.
    It appears that the Justice Department has ignored ALL the court 
findings in the case (every single court found that MS had 
aggressively abused its monopoly position for its own competitive 
advantage)and has basically agreed not only to NOT penalize MS for 
its long standing antitrust abuses, but to actually grant MS a 
defacto monopoly in the high-tech industry going forward. I cannot 
tell you what a disaster this would be for all of us that are NOT 
Microsoft minions, and especially for those of us working with or 
dependant upon Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac...or indeed ANY non-
Microsoft code base or service.
    As a member of the high-tech industry, I strongly urge you to 
carefully review the Justice Department's Final Judgment and then 
act accordingly. The future of the high-tech industry and all of its 
members will be greatly impacted by the outcome of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Dana M. Goldsmith
    Silicon Valley, CA



MTC-00010947

From: John A Zambrano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft ATR case
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse,
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft. This 
settlement is appropriate. Certain Microsoft competitors and other 
critics of the proposed settlement make the 


[[Page 25383]]

core of their objections 
a call for more stringent restrictions. Why? More extreme critics 
complain that the remedies do not address products that were not 
even part of the case. These objections ignore the decision of the 
Appeals Court that reversed much of Judge Jackson's original 
findings. The Appeals Court threw out findings on many fronts 
related to Microsoft's anti-monopolistic behavior.
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of Justice 
claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends. 
Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely addresses 
each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, and does so 
with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of violation 
addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible access to 
Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, to 
preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court. In my view, there 
can be no valid objection to this settlement because every major 
finding of the Appeals Court is stringently addressed with a 
targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and prevents the 
behavior in question.
    Acceptance of the proposed settlement will send a signal 
throughout American industry and the country as a whole that in the 
United States rule of law is alive and well--that defendants face 
remedies only for those findings against them. Anything beyond this 
settlement would represent a victory for those who do not seek 
remedy but rather also unwarranted punishment, and this would be a 
serious blow to the smooth functioning of free markets and the law 
that protects them. Participants in the American economy would 
forever be forced to fear whether the laws they rely upon to safely 
conduct business will be applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    John A. Zambrano
    4205 227th Pl SW
    MtLake Terr. Wa., 98043



MTC-00010948

From: gnsbarnett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
301 Rochester Road NE
Poplar Grove, IL 61065-9274
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I feel that closing the book on the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
is the best thing to do right now, especially since we are in the 
middle of a recession.
    This settlement will have a positive affect on the IT industry, 
competition, and both the American and global economies. Under the 
terms of the settlement, Microsoft will not retaliate against 
software of hardware producers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows. Nor may they retaliate against computer makers who ship 
software that competes with anything in the Windows operating 
system. The entire IT industry and competition in that industry 
stands to benefit quite nicely from this. But clever people like me 
who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity. 
A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
    I support the settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon 
as possible.
    Thank you.
    But is suspense, as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there 
isn't room, the ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely for American renewal,
    George Barnett



MTC-00010949

From: Meta Ukena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please know of my support for strong remedies designed to curb 
Microsoft's abusive monopoly practices. Thank you.
    Meta Ukena
    1 Park Lane--2B
    Mt. Vernon, NY 10552



MTC-00010950

From: Torgeir Kateraas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    1-14-2002
    I support Macrosft
    Torgeir Kateraas



MTC-00010951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Bill Gates ought to be given a medal or a congratulatory 
declaration. My husband and I are 73. If it were not for Bill Gates 
improving the computer world, etc., we would not had been able to 
have one nor been able to understand how to use one. He should not 
be penalized. Phyllis Van Huss




MTC-00010952

From: David Friedman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft: Extending Monopoly into the Mobile Internet
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kutally- I am writing to voice my 
opinion regarding the recent deal between the DOJ and Microsoft. As 
an executive in Silicon Valley in the mobile internet/data space, I 
am concerned that the recent decision will allow Microsoft to 
propagate their unfair, anti-competitive and ruthless business 
monopoly into the mobile data arena--which many are trumpeting as 
the second coming of the internet. This deal could allow Microsoft 
to expand its monopoly into the next frontier of mobile data. 
Allowing this shadow to be cast over the mobile data arena will 
deprive many start-ups who are the seedbed of innovation of the hope 
and potential future success that drives them to take the risk in 
the first place.
    Please carefully review the facts and ensure that the framework 
that gave rise to innovative business practices and thus Silicon 
Valley as the engine behind the US economy is preserved.
    thanks,
    David Friedman
    Principle
    Friedman Advisors
    David Friedman
    [email protected]



MTC-00010953

From: Chris and Judy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the recent antitrust settlement and hope that it comes 
to fruition as soon as possible. Although, I believe that Microsoft 
did not make any antitrust violation, I believe this is the quickest 
and best way to end this Clinton era witch hunt.
    Under the terms of the settlement, there are generous provisions 
that will allow software developers and computer makers to more 
effectively promote their own products. Also Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose technology and design future versions of Windows' with 
competitive handicaps. As a shareholder I am paying the price for 
this and I don't like it but it is more important to settle and get 
this behind us.
    Before the matter is settled I ask your office to attack the 
nine states that want to continue litigation. They are showcasing 
for political and self-interest reasons and not thinking about what 
is in the best interest of the American people and American economy. 
Settle!
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Zahnle
    2458 Westwood Ct
    Clarkston, WA 99403
    (509) 758-5869



MTC-00010954

From: Craig Morehouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  7:34pm
Subject: Make the penalty more harsh. Ban 


[[Page 25384]]

them from governent use!
    Dear Sirs;
    I have been an IT professional for 22 years, and am currently 
CEO of a high-tech Printing and Publishing firm.
    12 years ago, I had to sue Microsoft because they refused to 
license me a product that was already 5 years obsolete and out of 
production, one that I could not even BUY if I wanted to. I was 
trying to pay them for their MS-DOS 2.1 from 1984, and they wouldn't 
allow it. They wanted me to license their current version only. 
Well, I wanted the OLD version because I wanted to distribute a 
collection of OLD programs, and needed that particular version of 
COMMAND.COM to make the disk bootable and the programs runnable. The 
current version wouldn't work; the programs would freeze, which is a 
result of deliberate engineering on their part as well.
    This is a sample of their attitude. They treat customers like 
cattle, and they treat their Dealers like slaves.
    In all my 22 years, I have NEVER, not on one occasion, had a 
Microsoft product become my Product of Choice on its merits. On a 
couple of occasions, they ranked as high as 2nd or 3rd, (this was 
their Microsoft Pascal and Microsoft Fortan compilers in the mid 
80's, but even then they were not the best product available.)
    This company has succeeded like the Mob operations of New Jersey 
and Chicago, and I think there was clear evidence to that effect in 
the trial. They deserve nothing but the harshest teatment, and they 
should be banished from authorized use by the U.S. Government, their 
largest customer.
    Craig Morehouse
    President and CEO
    The Foundation Project Inc.
    Winter Park, Fl.



MTC-00010955

From: Edward F.(038)Kathryn J. Carrier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12-A Highland Road
Rochester, Pa. 15074
January 14, 2002
The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe the antitrust case that has been brought against 
Microsoft for the last three years is ridiculous and has been 
dragged out too long. I am glad to see that Microsoft will not be 
broken up, but feel that many of the concessions Microsoft will be 
making are more than are really necessary. For one, the contractual 
restrictions Microsoft will be making limit their ability to gain 
and maintain market share. Companies in many other industries rely 
on the ability to enter into third party agreements which demand 
exclusive or fixed percentage distribution rights. Second, the 
disclosure of Microsoft interfaces to competitors violates 
Microsoft's intellectual property rights. Microsoft has spent 
extraordinary amounts of time and effort to develop their technology 
and it would undermine the whole reason for being innovative in a 
business if their developments become free information for everyone.
    The bottom line is that it is in the best interest of the 
American public to have this matter settled. It will be good for the 
states, the IT industry, for Microsoft and for the economy. Thank 
you for your consideration of this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn J. Carrier



MTC-00010956

From: Chatfield (038) Osborn Family
To: Microsoft ATR,attorney.general @po.state.ct.us@inet...
Date: 1/14/02  7:59pm
Subject: MIRCROSOFT Antitrust Comment
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I am concerned that the Microsoft's proposed punishment does not 
adequately (nothing?) to address correcting is predatory antitrust 
behavior that stifles others innovation and rewards them for being 
big and continuing to control the desktop AND the applications that 
run on the operating system and desktop. My personal opinion is that 
short of splitting the company, the only thing that might help is 
forcing them to sell a completely stripped version of their 
operating system at a correspondingly low price.
    They have destroyed all competition not only for the operating 
system, one operating system probably enough just like one gauge of 
railroad track, but also destroyed all competition for applications 
on the operating system (read trains, shipping companies, etc.) I 
suggest you revisit separating the operating system division of the 
company from the applications division.
    Thank you for considering my comments,
    Ronald J Osborn
    5301 Talbot's Landing
    Ellicott City, MD 21043
    [email protected] (for now, soon to be [email protected])



MTC-00010957

From: Peter Rulison
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Rulison
P.O. Box 644
Kremmling, CO 80459-0644
January 14, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating 
and creating better products for consumers, and not wasting 
valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Rulison



MTC-00010958

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I am appalled at the terms of the settlement. If the same terms 
were applied to any of the other corporations convicted of breaking 
antitrust laws, there would be an outcry from other companies and 
the public.
    Richard F. Santopietro, PhD



MTC-00010959

From: Wilbur W. Wiley
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wilbur W. Wiley
PO Box 285
Chester Heights, PA 19017
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wilbur W. Wiley


[[Page 25385]]



MTC-00010960

From: FULTZ Randall A
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:05pm
Subject: Please end Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
    Dear Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am aware of Microsoft's unprecedented market dominance, and I 
do continue to use their products. But I do not feel it is in the 
best interests of American enterprise for the DOJ or the US 
Government to support the ongoing monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft.
    Open competition and fair-market practices MUST be upheld in 
this landmark case, or else the current rate of technological 
growth, and the development of better, more stable, innovative 
products will surely suffer.
    I am also concerned that Microsoft's lack of meaningful market-
share competition for alternative Operating Systems, Web-browsers 
and Windows-based software, can only lead to increasingly poorer 
functionality in their product lines and an ever-increasing 
disregard for the need of America's business, corporate and home-
based consumers.
    Please deal responsibly with Microsoft--end the monopoly, now!
    I request you immediately stop Microsoft's regrettable dominance 
and control of America's Information Systems. Help keep America 
free!
    Sincerely,
    Randall Alan Fultz
    --Randy Fultz
    Oregon Employment Department



MTC-00010961

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I understand that we are in a public comment period between now 
and January 28th after which the District Court will determine 
whether the Microsoft settlement is in the ???public interest.??? As 
a concerned citizen and a taxpayer, I am writing to tell you that I 
believe the settlement is fair and just and that I believe that the 
case should be settled so we can all move forward.
    This case has been a complete waste of the taxpayers' money and 
has done much damage to Microsoft, one of the most important engines 
in our entire economy. Let's settle this case and get it behind us.
    Regards,
    William Kennedy



MTC-00010962

From: Deo Recaido
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a programmer and honestly speaking i am using microsoft 
products on my day to day job. As much as i hate microsoft products, 
i cannot do anything as it is being used by the company where i work 
for. i actually prefer other softwares than that of microsoft. it's 
a shame that when somebody is going up and leaving us behind, we 
would try to pull him down in any way. why do most people complain 
when they feel they are being defeated? It is hard to imagine the 
kind of thinking people particularly those involved mainly in the 
case, judges, attorneys, etc. What is ``monopoly''? i guess you have 
a ``stupid'' and ``one-sided'' meaning for it.
    this is in defense for microsoft but rather a personal opinion. 
...:-)



MTC-00010963

From: Janet Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I agree with this settlement and sincerely hope that this matter 
will be brought to an end. To be honest, I do not trust the 
government to do what is best for me and my choices as a consumer. 
In addition, the taxpayer money that has been spent on the pursuit 
of Microsoft could very well have been spent on much more dangerous 
and severe problems, such as, monitoring and tracking terrorists. I 
truly believe that the Clinton justice dept. was by far the most 
incompetent and corrupt, in addition to being an American nightmare.



MTC-00010964

From: Deb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  8:20pm
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 Judge Hesse,
    Please do not accept the Microsoft settlement. Please only agree 
to something that will:
    (1) prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in the 
future,
    (2) spark competition in this industry, and
    (3) deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Antkoviak



MTC-00010965

From: edge oo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    For the benifit of everyone that uses a computer please stop 
microsofts monopoly.



MTC-00010966

From: Bill Barnhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2113 Arrowhead Drive
Olathe, KS 66062
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my opinions on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I do not believe the suit was fair to Microsoft to begin 
with. The Microsoft Corporation and its employees have attained 
their dominant status in the IT industry through hard work and 
innovation, not through a concerted and conscious effort to 
block the advances of competing software producers. Nevertheless, 
Microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust laws and was 
brought to trial in the federal courts to answer for these 
violations. After three years of negotiation and mediation, 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice finally came to an agreement 
that would seem to be beneficial to Microsoft's competitors while at 
the same time allowing Microsoft to remain intact. Unfortunately, 
there are those who wish to see the settlement overturned and 
Microsoft destroyed. This is extreme.
    Microsoft does not need to be rent asunder. The settlement has 
provided well for Microsoft's competitors. Microsoft has agreed to 
license intellectual property rights that fall under terms of the 
settlement to its competitors. Additionally, Microsoft will refrain 
from retaliatory behavior when software is put on the market that 
directly competes with Microsoft products. Microsoft will also not 
enter into agreements wherein a third party is required to endorse 
Microsoft programs or products either at a fixed percentage or 
exclusively.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe further litigation against 
Microsoft is either necessary or wise. The economy has suffered 
while Microsoft has been tied up in this suit, and the IT industry 
has likewise been stunted in its growth. Microsoft has, through this 
settlement, appeased the demands of justice. I urge you to let the 
settlement stand. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Barnhart
    [email protected]



MTC-00010967

From: Tony D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Suit
    I support Microsoft in this antitrust suit. I never thought the 
suit should have been brought in the first place. I also, believe 
the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable.
    A. DeBerardino
    23 Schooner Lane
    Okatie, SC 29910



MTC-00010968

From: Joel Gossett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    The settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case is very 
important. I have heard comments from my customers and family that 
the case is a ``Joke'' ``not right'' ``not fair'' and I believe it 
degrades the DOJ to a level that the American Public lose their 
trust in our ``system''. Anytime a Judge is so obviously biased in 
any type of case the people of this Country feel they could wind up 
in front of a similar Judge. Settle this as fast as possible to 
prevent greater erosion of public trust in our Justice system.
    Joel Gossett



MTC
-00010969

From: Lock Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25386]]

Date: 1/14/02  8:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that this suit be settled and the matter 
closed. Enough public funds and times have been spent on trying to 
disable a company that changed corporate America forever. Settle!!
    Lock Hunter
    Alabama



MTC-00010970

From: Harry Mullin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I urge the Justice Department to end its litigation of Microsoft 
and do what ever it can to end litigation by States. I am a long 
time computer user beginning with the Apple Mac at its first 
introduction. Microsoft has done nothing to hurt me as a user of its 
products--quite the contrary, it has provided extraordinary 
opportunity. As an independent developer and web designer I can only 
applaud Microsoft's efforts in the computer field and look forward 
to future development when the company is allowed to do so.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Harry Mullin
    Laguna Niguel, CA



MTC-00010971

From: Miles B. Kehoe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already!
    I am a partner in a small software development firm--I've been 
making my living for over 25 years in computer programming and 
consulting. Perhaps none of the organized Microsoft opposition are 
happy with settling this unjust legal action by the United States: 
they would have us step back into a time of operating system chaos 
and incompatibility. None of the States Attorney Generals are 
required by law to use Microsoft products; let them go out and buy a 
competitive operating system and then find software to use with it.
    There ARE operating system AND application choices out there. It 
is not Microsoft's fault that their competitors, with less vision 
and less concern for the ultimate end user, made serious business 
and technical mistakes that caused their products to flounder while 
Microsoft spent billions of dollars on user testing, quality 
testing, and innovative software development. No company anywhere in 
the technology world has done more for end users, developers, and 
for the industry as a whole than Microsoft. The government, seeing 
someone making a great deal of money in return for their investment, 
has decided that the best way to get their piece of the action is to 
hassle, fine, and intimidate Microsoft. When several competitors get 
together to try to negatively impact another company in an industry, 
it is called 'restraint of trade'--unless, that is, you can buy more 
congressmen, senators, and politicians to rule in your favor.
    It's no accident that the NASDAQ market index collapsed on the 
day Microsoft was charged in this foolish waste of taxpayer money; 
and that the entire industry has been depressed since the government 
has been pursuing this folly.
    Get it over--end the harassment and let the industry get back to 
innovating.
    Miles Kehoe
    President
    New Idea Engineering
    [email protected]
    408-446-3303
    10140 Hillcrest Road
    Cupertino CA 95014



MTC-00010972

From: nolandpeebles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Your Honor, Judge Kollar-Kotelly: I am a business consultant and 
a user of Microsoft software. I do, however, urge you to rule that 
Microsoft must comply with all previous court rulings and cease 
their monopolistic practices. I support a fair business market place 
and would expect a company of Microsoft's reputation to honor that 
ethic, not control or force competitors out of business. Thank you. 
Noland Peebles [email protected] 541.726.1361



MTC-00010973

From: Scott Guthery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:45pm
Subject: Candidate Gets 100% of the Votes
    If a political candidate got 100% of the votes in an election, 
would we disqualify him or her and declare the oppoenent the winner? 
I don't think so. So why can the public elect a person unanimously 
and not pick a product in the market place unaimously? Microsoft is 
successful because Americans have voted with their dollars.
    The government shouldn't be in the business of picking products 
any more than they should be in the business of calling election 
outcomes. Lots of us like Mr. Gates' products better than Mr. 
Ellison's or Mr. McNealy's.
    So be it!
    Cheers, Scott



MTC-00010974

From: Lexx
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why can't we put this behind us for other more pressing matters. 
Why can't the Department of Justice settle this matter...the users, 
the employees, the stockholders, and the general public are 
beginning to think there are some personal agendas going on with 
reference to this suit.
    ENOUGH ALREADY! SETTLE IT! GET ON TO IMPORTANT MATTERS!



MTC-00010975

From: Tom Layson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At a time when the entire country is reeling from an economic 
down turn, it is ridiculous to drag this issue out any further. The 
political motivation behind the states refusing the settlement is 
despicable. Our country and economy needs closure, not this kind 
of divisiveness.
    I urge you to see that ending this matter is in the public 
interest. The terms of the settlement are tough, but fair. Our 
country needs to dig itself out of this recession and further 
punishing one of the few companies weathering the storm will only 
hurt the employees of Microsoft, the people of Washington state and 
the United States as a whole.
    Thank you
    Tom Layson
    Software Design Lead
    Microsoft Corporation



MTC-00010976

From: Milton Karafilis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You should settle the microsoft case as the settlement now 
stands. If the settlement is for the People rather than Microsoft's 
competitors what better way than to benefit School Chilren. M. 
Karafilis



MTC-00010977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm 55, married, children, homeowner, have voted both Democrat 
and Republican, contribute to social and political causes, no 
industry or investment connection to Microsoft or its competitors. 
I'll give you my opinion in the short version. Settle up and leave 
Microsoft alone already.
    Very truly yours,
    Paul Pomerantz



MTC-00010978

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:58pm
Subject: Proposed settlement(s) with Microsoft
    In the olden days of personal computers, 10-15 years ago when 
people were getting interested in this new medium, there were more 
than a few companies making computers with both different components 
and different operating systems. And there were lots of companies 
making software programs to work with the various systems.
    Thanks to the competitive atmosphere that prevailed at the time 
each had to not only keep up with the others but stay a jump or two 
ahead of them. It was a kind of leap-frog thing that benefited users 
and at the same time kept the computer industry adjusting, improving 
and advancing in every way.
    In those days we had a lot of products, hardware and software, 
to choose from--to fit our personal preferences.
    How things have changed! Microsoft's Windows not only dominates 
the field now, but Microsoft has been adjudged not only a monopoly, 
but designs it's system in such a way as to make it difficult, and 
sometimes impossible, for other company products to work in 
conjunction with Windows.
    That's an unfortunate and giant step from the competitive 
atmosphere that put a 


[[Page 25387]]

personal computer on nearly every desk--and 
even two or more in many homes--to a predatory monopolistic enclave!
    No wonder the current class-action suit that holds Microsoft 
guilty of overcharging for Windows may not be settled by allowing 
Microsoft to further permeate the field by furnishing Microsoft-only 
programs in reconditioned computers to be given to under funded 
schools. (Some complain that Microsoft's offer would cost only about 
$1 million of their reported $36 billion of cash and short term 
securities.)
    Wouldn't it be nice if the courts, U.S. or EU, could do whatever 
is needed to get us back to the old handsomely progressive 
competitive days by requiring Microsoft to loosen up and cooperate 
with other computer companies so we could again enjoy constant 
improvements, and choices, in software and hardware--at competitive 
prices?
    At least we can dream, can't we?
    Howard S Rodgers
    [email protected]>
    Tel & Fax 928 445-7781
    PO Box 10487
    Prescott AZ 86304-0487



MTC-00010979

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please let Microsoft continue to operate unfettered by 
government interference. They produce products that are of great use 
to businesses and consumers alike. Settle the case as soon as 
possible.
    The suit never should have happened in the first place. Don't 
compound the problem by drawing out the settlement.



MTC-00010980

From: Sharon Chiu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing this email to express my strong feeling about the 
Microsoft settlement case. It is very clear and obvious that 
Microsoft has violated the antitrust laws with the intention of 
wiping out her competitors at all cost.
    That said, I feel that any government settlement with Microsoft, 
in order to protect the technology community and the larger public, 
must cover the following issues:
    1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly immediately,
    2. Deny to Microsoft the profits of its past violations (give it 
to our government for budget or community for profit sharing), and
    3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
    Thank you very much for taking my comments into consideration 
when making the settlement.
    Best regards,
    Sharon Chiu
    Chief Financial Officer
    Elibrium Inc.
    www.Elibrium.com
    Direct (W) 650-212-9388
    Fax: 650-345-8562



MTC-00010981

From: Georg Bolch
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Georg Bolch
P O Box 528
Suquamish, WA 98392-0528
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Georg G Bolch



MTC-00010982

From: Benoni Nowland IV
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Benoni Nowland IV
    10398 Ridge Road
    Nevada City, CA 95959
    January 14, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business 
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 
the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-
tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new 
and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Benoni Nowland IV



MTC-00010983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement of the suit against Microsoft should be settled 
and put to bed. To begin with, there should never have been a suit 
against the company that has really put the USA as a leader in the 
computer arena. Thus no more litigation.
    Lets go forward, not waste time and money against a company that 
has provided so much.
    Joe Hart [email protected]
    Naples, FL



MTC-00010984

From: John Berthoud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Attached please find our letter commenting on the settlement of 
the Microsoft case.
    We are also sending it via fax.
    Thank you for considering our input.
    John Berthoud
    President
    National Taxpayers Union &
    National Taxpayers Union Foundation [email protected] 
www.ntu.org
    Phone--703-683-5700
    Fax--703-683-5722
January14,2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
VIA FAX # 202-307-1454
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    On behalf of the 335,000 members of the National Taxpayers 
Union, I am writing to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in 
United States v. Microsoft.
    As you may know, it is our position that this case was brought 
to protect Microsoft's competitors - not competition itself. 
Furthermore, we remain concerned that many state Attorneys General 
continue to push the suit forward for ideological and political 
reasons.
    We are, however, pleased to see that after four years the 
parties are prepared to settle a case that has produced many 
unfortunate results. Taxpayers have been forced to underwrite the 
litigation to the tune of at least $35 million. Microsoft was 
compelled to shift considerable resources into the legal battle that 
would normally have been spent on product innovation, and also faces 
a tangle of private antitrust-spawned litigation. 

[[Page 25388]]

And as NTU 
Foundation research has shown, the government litigation has imposed 
billions of dollars worth of stock market losses on millions of 
American investors.
    The Proposed Final Judgment contains many references to 
``consumers.'' Indeed, the antitrust authorities have insisted from 
the beginning that this case was about consumer welfare. Yet the 
original purpose of the suit against Microsoft was to enjoin the 
company from including Internet Explorer as part of its Windows 
operating system, which the plaintiffs deemed to be a grievous 
threat to Netscape (later purchased for $5 billion by Internet giant 
AOL, a Microsoft competitor). In a suit supposedly brought on behalf 
of consumers, we remain puzzled as to how it would have helped 
consumers to make them pay for an Internet browser they could 
otherwise get for free. Consumers place a high value on the ability 
to use a standardized, integrated operating system. In fact, public 
opinion polls taken throughout the Microsoft antitrust trial showed 
that sizable majorities of the public viewed Microsoft and its 
products favorably.
    The Proposed Final Judgment's emphasis on ``network effects'' as 
a ``barrier to entry'' for Microsoft competitors in many senses 
disregards consumers' demonstrated preference for standardized 
software. The government's suit was premised upon a fundamental 
misunderstanding of the way in which consumer markets operate: 
Microsoft did not build up its large market share through anti-
competitive practices; instead Microsoft became the nation's largest 
software company by providing consumers with the products they 
prefer. Several state Attorneys General are refusing to sign the 
Proposed Final Judgment on the grounds that it is not strong enough. 
However, the agreement appears to provide the plaintiffs with 
exactly the type of relief they were seeking.
    The settlement gives each of the settling states and the 
Department of Justice the power to enforce the decree and to seek a 
broad range of remedies in the event of a violation. An independent 
Technical Committee that reports to the plaintiffs would be afforded 
full access to Microsoft's facilities, employees, records, and even 
the Windows source code. And the settlement binds Microsoft to 
provide information to its competitors so that their programs will 
be Windows-compatible. Based on the strength of these remedies and 
the fast pace at which the software industry is evolving, we believe 
that the five-year duration of the decree--as opposed to the 
customary ten-year period--is appropriate.
    The antitrust laws do not exist to preserve specific products or 
specific competitors. They exist to preserve competition itself, and 
we believe that consumers freely chose Microsoft's products-- which 
provided a standardized, integrated operating system that 
revolutionized personal computer use. The results included a huge 
jump in desktop computer usage, much-improved efficiency, and robust 
growth in the software industry throughout the 1990s. Thus, we 
believe that this case constituted unnecessary, and harmful, 
government interference with the private sector. Rather than a 
victory for competition, we believe the Microsoft case represents a 
defeat for taxpayers, consumers, and investors.
    With the economy in recession, Americans simply cannot keep 
paying the high price of governmental attempts to dictate winners 
and losers in the marketplace. We welcome settlement of this 
regrettable case.
    Sincerely,
    John Berthoud President



MTC-00010985

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge:
    I trust that you will do the right thing in this case. Clearly, 
allowing Microsoft to abuse its monopoly going forward will hurt our 
software industry, our economy and eventually, our nation's overall 
standing in the world.
    Thank you.
    Dawn Scardina
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00010986

From: Joel Schermerhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, as a concerned citizen of the US, want the government to end 
Clinton-Era, Anti-Trust Law Abuse of this Microsoft case. Let's get 
this case over with and get on with life!!! Please seriously 
consider this email by a concerned citizen. Thank you sincerely, 
Joel Schermerhorn.
    Joel Schermerhorn
    74 Huff Road
    Delhi, NY 13753
    Have a great day and a blessed forever!
    Sincerely,
    Joel Schermerhorn



MTC-00010987

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe the lawsuit by the states should be settled. Microsoft 
is a great company and should be allowed to do what it does best--
innovate. The DOJ settlement was fair and reasonable. There is no 
basis for the separate states to not settle along the same lines 
that DOJ did.
    Jay Sondhi



MTC-00010988

From: RJEckhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
202 Kin.q Avenue
Westmont, New Jersey 08108
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I implore you and your department to please end this ongoing 
litigation against Microsoft and to finalize this settlement. This 
court-negotiated settlement meets the public interest and deserves 
to go forward.
    The provisions and terms of this settlement agreement create a 
system of accountability and work to foster competition in the 
technology industry. Microsoft, by the settlement, is required to 
share its intellectual property with a competitor, if that 
competitor, by applying the terms of the settlement, infringes on 
Microsoft's intellectual property. In order to maintain 
accountability and compliance, Microsoft has also agreed to submit 
to a technical oversight committee that will review their business 
practices. Clearly this settlement is more than a slap on 
Microsoft's corporate wrists.
    This process has gone on long enough and should end. Please let 
us implement this settlement, agree with the public interest and not 
waste anymore time or money.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Eckhardt



MTC-00010989

From: Jen Lucha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:22pm
Subject: [Fwd: Antitrust Settlement of Microsoft]
    Dear DOJ:
    I am outraged by the settlement you have negotiated for 
Microsoft. It seem to have been written by Microsoft and it not in 
the best interest of American citizens. You are letting Microsoft go 
unpunished for its business practices.
    What kind of message at you sending?
    It is ok for criminals to go unpunished. I was wondering how I 
am going to explain this to my children. That we had a chance to 
right a wrong in the computer industry and make it move forward, but 
chose instead to do nothing! You are holding the computer industry 
hostage. And you will be responsible for the holding back of years 
of progression.
    I would like you to disapprove of this settlement. And punish 
Microsoft the way it deserves.
    Thanks,
    Jennifer Lucha
    (909) 485-7426
    [email protected]



MTC-00010990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I hope that the suit against Microsoft will be settled in favor 
of Microsoft and the American people without creating the mess that 
was created when AT&T was broken up. The Justice Department should 
turn its attention to Enron.
    Lee Williams



MTC-00010991

From: Pawan Bali
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom It may Concern!
    The Government of United States of America should leave 
Microsoft alone because:


[[Page 25389]]

    1. No other Company or Corporation (including, of course, the 
Government) than Microsoft has contributed more to the economic, 
social and global development of not only the United States of 
America but also the Entire Universe.
    2. It is becoming very obvious recently that Elected Officials 
of the Govt. serve the interest of a very few influential and rich 
individuals only who .. . This would provide the Government the 
first opportunity to serve the general public whose day to day 
living conditions depends on good economic situation at home.
    Thanks.
    Pawan Kumar Bali
    [email protected]



MTC-00010992

From: Claude Cavanaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:31pm
Subject: The Microsoft Case
    Please consider what the world would be like if there were only 
one automobile manufacturer that owned all the steel mills, one oil 
company that owned all the refineries and one grocery store that 
owned all the farms.
    The same applies to one PC applications developer that owns the 
operating system. Microsoft broke the law and should be punished for 
it. It is a good solution to split the company into two entities. 
One for applications and one for operating systems. Not unlike 
United Technologies. You didn't let them build the engines and the 
airplanes to use in their airline company. Microsoft should not be 
able to build the applications that use their operating system.
    This will not cause Microsoft any real grief. It will only make 
them compete in the marketplace like everyone else.
    Sincerely,
    Name withheld out of fear of reprisal from Microsoft.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00010993

From: Erin Diehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
847 North Van Dorn Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22304
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to voice my opinion regarding the settlement 
in the Microsoft Anti Trust case. This settlement has been long 
awaited and I see no reason too prolong its implementation. As part 
of the lawsuit's terms, a mediator was assigned by the courts to 
assist in the negotiation efforts. Microsoft certainly did not get 
off easy, as some may think. They are giving way more than is 
necessary, given that they are a private company and should be able 
to keep their research and technology to themselves.
    However, they are handing over coding and interface information 
to their competitors who weren't smart enough to come up with their 
own. They are also making it easier for Windows users to install and 
use non-Windows products. Given the fact that most computers come 
with Windows because they are the most user-friendly, I don't see 
why this was an issue in the first place. I decided to install non-
Microsoft products on my computer and had no problems in doing so. 
But as part of the settlement, Microsoft is going above and beyond 
their responsibility and nearly promoting other companies' products.
    I am a graduate student and throughout my years of schooling and 
research, I've depended on Microsoft for everything having to do 
with computers. Doing papers and research would not have been as 
easy had I not been able to use my computer. I remember how 
difficult word-processing programs were before Microsoft's Word 
program. Since then young computer users have easily picked up the 
ins and outs of software and computers. Microsoft has changed the 
way people learn. I would be hard pressed to learn other products 
such as UNIX or Oracle. Although anyone is free to use them, these 
products are inferior to Microsoft's products in that they are much 
more difficult and not very user-friendly. However, the terms of the 
settlement now call for these products to be made more easily 
available.
    The terms of this settlement go above and beyond what is 
necessary. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Microsoft has 
served the public interest for years; this settlement certainly does 
the same.
    Please maintain this settlement and ensure this lawsuit is laid 
to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Erin Diehl



MTC-00010994

From: James R. Ryder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    While I fully appreciate the influence the Bush Administration 
may have had on expediting a settlement in the matter of Microsoft 
vs. DOJ it is my contention that this charge was baseless from the 
beginning. I am truly ashamed as a Conservative that this was ever 
taken on in the first place!
    Good luck to Microsoft and I hope the DOJ spends more time going 
after AOL where the same amount of public control is being had.
    James T. Ryder



MTC-00010995

From: Lisa Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I for one am tired of knowing my tax money is being used for 
this witchhunt and want this case to settled immediately. Don't 
waste our tax dollars on companies that want a fair shake in our 
capitolistics society.
    If a company cannot make it on its own well, that is healthy 
competition ! Sincerest regards
    Lisa Moore



MTC-00010996

From: Mary Spero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Aloha Judge!
    PLEASE stop persecuting Microsoft! Hey, we all had a chance to 
decide what we wanted. I chose Microsoft and my daughter chose 
Apple. NOBODY forced either of us to make our decisions. I *DON'T* 
use MS's browser; I like Netscape better. What I really don't like 
is the recession brought on by *MY* government's persecution of the 
people who gave us the superb economy of the 90's. Soooo, PLEASE, 
let Microsoft do what they do best... provide the world with some 
very good products--and some junk ones, too! g> Me ke aloha, Mary in 
Honolulu
    [email protected]



MTC-00010997

From: John Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Yes I am in agreement with the Microsoft settlement and I would 
like it to
    go forward.
    Sincerely
    Catherine Langone-Bailey



MTC-00010998

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that a settlement has been reached 
in the Justice Department's three-year case against Microsoft 
regarding alleged antitrust violations. I am glad that this case 
will be finally ending because of this settlement. I think Microsoft 
did not do anything wrong to have litigation brought against it.
    However, I believe that the settlement that has been reached is 
fair and reasonable to all of the parties involved. Others will tell 
you that Microsoft is getting off easy in this case. I strongly 
disagree with that statement, because the company will be making a 
number of changes to their products, and business practices. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Windows.
    Also, I would like to remind you that Microsoft has agreed to 
document and disclose for use by it's competitors various interfaces 
that are internal to Windows operating system products. I ask that 
the Justice Department accept the settlement, and no further action 
be taken against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Monika Puri
    8514 Magnolia Drive
    Lanham, MD 20706



MTC-00010999

From: Cathy Chavasse


[[Page 25390]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Rollover or DOJ WimpOut
    Oh please! For God's sake. We--American public/tax payer in the 
person of the DOJ--won! Why do we have to feel so guilty that we 
total capitulate in favor of the one that is really guilty? We are 
not guilty. We are not guilty. Keep saying that if it helps. 
Microsoft is guilty. Microsoft is guilty.
    Microsoft is a convicted criminal. Treat if like one. If I get a 
speeding ticket, do I get to negotiate my punishment after I am 
found guilty? And promise to speed on all the unpaved back roads 
too. If I rob a bank (more like what MS has done), do I get to keep 
the money, and buy a couple of real banks to further my crime. They 
have been doing the same crime for more than ten years. I only speed 
once in a while. And I have not robbed a bank yet. But if I get the 
same treatment that MS is getting, I may just speed all the time and 
get into robbing banks.
    How can you guys do this? At least make them pay the (tax 
payers') court cost!
    The tax payers should not have to pay again. And again. And 
again.
    You guys should be ashamed.
    Senior Engineer
    Dataway West
    Christopher B Chavasse



MTC-00011000

From: Harold H. Burbank, II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    I object to the settlement terms without reading them as I have 
long believed the lawsuit is simply a witch hunt against Microsoft, 
which, like it or not, made it on the same rules of American 
capitalism available to its competitors. My boss, CT attorney 
general Richard Blumenthal, is a clear example of how far some 
politicians will go try to get publicity for themselves at 
Microsoft's expense. He has wasted millions of state dollars trying 
to set American commerce policy which should be set in Congress, not 
the courts. The fact is the state AGs who persist in suing cannot 
succeed in Congress. The whole case should have been thrown out. 
Implicitly, the settlement in unfair and unlawful toward Microsoft, 
which in no clear way violated the law from the start.
    Attorney Harold H. Burbnak, II
    Office of CT Attorney General



MTC-00011001

From: Peter R. Newell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft should not be allowed to continue its monopolistic 
anticompetitive practices. Microsoft's ill-gotten domination of PC 
operating systems (Windows) through monopolistic practices and sheer 
marketing have done a great disservice to the average consumer, who 
is not technologically savvy enough to understand what is going on. 
Microsoft can get away with virtually telling the consumer what they 
want or need by virtue of this monopoly, and can likewise stifle 
competition by not fully disclosing the workings and interfaces to 
Windows. For the short and long-term good of the computer user as 
well as the industry, Microsoft must be prevented from continuing 
these practices.
    Peter R. Newell
    Affordable Technical Solutions
    Glenfield NY



MTC-00011002

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:55pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I wish to add my voice to the many Americans who believe that 
the settlement agreed to by Microsoft is in the best interests of 
the economy and the thousands of children whose education in the 
area of informational technology and computer skills will be 
wonderfully enhanced. Despite the obvious public benefits of this 
settlement, nine different states refuse to settle, hoping to get 
more cash to pour into the black sink hole of state coffers and into 
the pockets of the lawyers urging them on. Their cavalier approach 
ignores the long term benefits of the innovations of Microsoft and 
their positive impact on all Americans. Enough of the Microsoft 
bashing. Let's get on with it and, in doing so, encourage Microsoft 
to continue to lead the way to even more invention and innovation in 
this exciting realm.
    J. L. Gibbs, MD
    Canton, Ill



MTC-00011003

From: RR-
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Microsoft has tried in Good Faith to settle this litigation. 
Please do not allow politics to stop this settlement. The offer that 
was agreed to by the Department of Justice as well as the nine 
states is more then fair.
    The tech world as well as the consumers need this to be settled.
    Ray Reid
    3355 Deer lake Court SE
    Salem, Oregon 97301



MTC-00011004

From: [email protected]
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/14/02  9:56pm
    Settle the Microsoft case now On the terms agreed to with DOJ. 
To prolong this ridiculous lawsuit with the maveric states is 
counter productive to the economy and increased productivity. It 
only caters to the states who are fronting for weak companies in 
their respective states. SETTLE NOW!
    Wm. Necoechea



MTC-00011005

From: cape--pss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support Microsoft and their settlement offer. It is in the 
best interest of all parties to settle this and move on from here. 
In the spirit of having the ``freedom to innovate'', we suggest the 
parties settle this case now.
    Jerry & Nancy Cape
    3109 Woodland Fern Drive
    Parrish, FL 34219



MTC-00011006

From: Kim Rubin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Proposed Settlement
    As a company CEO, I am against the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft. I am an avid capitalist who trusts the free market. 
However, Microsoft's effectively monopoly has permitted them to 
engage in a long pattern of anti-competitive behavior that has 
deprived companies and individuals of reasonable choices.
    Microsoft has some great products. I consider them the most 
brilliant marketing organization of last decade. As a company, we 
borrow from their marketing strategy.
    The Settlement that would benefit everyone, including Microsoft 
shareholders, would break the company into three companies: 
operating systems, application software, and internet operations. 
There would be no overlapping boards, management or infrastructure. 
All dealings between the three new companies would on a equal 
footing with other companies, and subject to court review.
    Thank you.
    Best regards,
    Kim Rubin, CEO, findtheDOT
    510 302-3463 x207 office
    650 799-0059 cell [email protected]



MTC-00011007

From: Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard and Agnes Tillerson
244 Osprey Circle
St Marys, Ga 31558-4101
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.


[[Page 25391]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Agnes and Leonard Tillerson



MTC-00011008

From: Ron Carns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it is time to get off Microsoft's case.
    I have been using Microsoft since the late '80s and have not 
found other to take its place. I do not view Microsoft as a 
monopoly. I have used other operating systems and have found 
Microsoft has the most sound systems for users and is very user 
conscious.
    When installing new versions of Microsoft I have options for 
different internet access and can set my system to run how I want 
it. I can easily get updates and software upgrades to keep my 
computer safe from hackers and viruses. Other companies have the 
equal right to try to be better than Microsoft but not by degrading 
one of the backbone companies on our on soil.
    It is time to redefine what a monopoly is and let our country 
get back to business at hand. Turn Microsoft loose and spend the 
governments funds on more important things like ``NATIONAL 
SECURITY''!!
    Thanks you............
    Ronald A. Carns
    46596 Twp Rd 479
    Coshocton, OH 43812-9573
    740-829-2061
    [email protected]



MTC-00011009

From: Bill Belvin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dept. of Justice,
    Please confirm the settlement already reached between Microsoft 
and the DOJ , and do it quickly. The remaining 9 plaintiff states 
are acting on the basis of their AG's, in my opinion, and not on 
what is good for the citizens of their states...which is an end to 
the uncertainty, and the release of creative software energy. This 
whole suit has been about protecting vindictive competitors who seek 
the courts intervention, rather than compete. Great injury has been 
done to Microsoft, and me the consumer by the whole process. So put 
it behind us, ratify the settlement, and let the market participants 
compete!
    Thank you,
    William S. Belvin



MTC-00011010

From: George Alexekos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:13pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly;
    Like most people, I was too busy with everything from the 
approaching holidays to the war (not to mention making the quarter) 
to pay much attention to the PFJ. But over the past couple weeks 
I've had a chance to study this proposed Agreement a bit more--and 
what I've found has really shocked me.
    For some reason the Justice Department seems to have ignored ALL 
the court findings in the case (over the past three years every 
single court involved found that MS had aggressively abused its 
monopoly position for its own competitive advantage--which is no 
great news to anyone in the software industry). But in fact the DoJ 
has basically agreed not only to NOT penalize MS for its long-
standing antitrust abuses, but to actually grant MS a de-facto 
monopoly in our industry going forward. I don't have to tell you 
what a disaster this would be for all of us that are NOT Microsoft 
minions (and especially for those of us working with or dependant 
upon Java, Linux, AOL, the Mac...or indeed ANY non-Microsoft code 
base or service). The good news is that you can still do something 
about this impending disaster before it's too late.
    I tend to get pretty involved when I believe deeply in 
something. And I sincerely believe that the PFJ is a potential 
disaster for all non-Microsoft players, big and small, in our 
industry, and potentially for consumers and for our nation as well. 
As much as I love the current Administration, our Justice Department 
fumbled the ball on this one.
    Thank you for helping to correct the very, very serious flaws in 
the PFJ.
    Sincerely;
    George Alexakos
    Boston, Mass



MTC-00011011

From: Dawn Scardina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:15pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement.....
    Dear Judge Kollar Kotell,
    I just wanted to write you a short note to let you know how 
disappointed I am in how the justice department is handling the 
Microsoft case. I understand that the Tunney Act allows you to 
review the opinions of the public concerning this case.
    Microsoft should not only be fined for their anti-
competitiveness, but steps should be taken to ensure that no other 
company is overlooked (and for so long) for exercising their 
monopolistic power to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
    I would like to say that while I do like Microsoft's products 
and services, I feel that competition is always good for consumers.
    Thank you for your time in regards to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Dawn Scardina



MTC-00011013

From: Bruce Hagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlemen
    Gentlemen:
    So Bill is rich. Very, very rich. So what!! What he has done for 
the computer industry and all of us that use computers cannot be 
comprehended by many. Is he perfect? No, but only the best we have. 
Isn't that what the US is (use to be) all about? Work hard, produce, 
and you get the rewards or have I missed what has happened to this 
country during the last 30 years. Let's get on with life and let MS 
get back to what they do best.
    Bruce Hagen




MTC-00011014

From: Shahid Chaudhry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    My name is Shahid and i want to comment on this matter in such a 
way that Microsoft Settlement should be made by now and it should 
not be furthere litigated. I think this thing is in the favor of all 
people.
    Shahid



MTC-00011015

From: Steve Weik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:41pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS A BAD DEAL...
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly
    I recently saw this Op-Ed in the San Jose Mercury News--and I 
think it conveys very clearly some of the main problems with the 
DoJ's proposed settlement with Microsoft. I understand that you are 
now charged with reviewing the PFJ--and as a long-time software 
industry veteran (and someone who is not strongly affilitated with 
any of the ``camps'' on this issue) I'd ask you to make SURE that 
the final agreement allows for a free and fair software industry--
and one that will produce secure code (something that Microsoft 
doesn't seem to know how to do).
    Thanks.
    Steve Weik
    LA, CA
    SECURITY IN DIVERSITY
    By Greg Papadopoulos
    The antitrust case against Microsoft isn't just about 
competition; it's about security.
    Over and above the usual economic risks presented by an 
unchecked monopolist--rising prices and monochromatic innovation--
the country's (and the world's) computer infrastructure will be 
increasingly vulnerable to attack if a single software system 
predominates. Imagine what would happen if producers of, say, corn 
were able to use their market power to eliminate wheat, rice, and 
oats. Suppose that 90 percent of the world's grain supply came from 
a single variety of corn. We would be faced with the unacceptable 
risk that some blight, some single disease, might wipe out an 
enormous portion of our food supply. So far, the possibility of 
bioengineered attacks on food crops has been largely theoretical, 
but engineered attacks on the Internet's software infrastructure 
happen all the time. We've seen what can happen when hackers exploit 
flaws in operating systems and Internet browsers. Last year's ``I 
Love You'' virus infected several million computers and caused as 
much as $10 billion in damages, while this year's ``Code Red'' and 
``Nimda'' worms caused another $4 billion. And the number of 
incidents is on the rise.
    Having only one kind of operating system or one kind of browser 
would make it much, much easier for saboteurs to bring the entire 
Internet to its knees.
    In a perfect world, software would be free of flaws for 
attackers to exploit. Quality control does reduce the number and 
severity of such flaws, but the current state of the art is that 
nearly every software release contains 


[[Page 25392]]


a few. Diversity is currently 
the best defense against attacks on the flaws of any particular 
software component. For increased reliability, a standard technical 
strategy at all levels of computer system design is redundancy and 
diversity. Fortunately, the connectivity of the Internet routing 
infrastructure is now highly redundant and built out of routers from 
multiple sources. It's the next layer or two--operating systems and 
software applications for desktop computers and other Web-enabled 
devices--that need attention. For very high reliability software, a 
well-studied solution is to have multiple independent teams each 
create their own redundant versions. This way a single design error 
or bug doesn't take down the whole system-- the other software 
versions take over instead.
    I believe that it's crucial to the health of the Internet--and 
to the worldwide economic system that has come to rely on it--that 
the infrastructure include measurable diversity. By that I mean we 
should have, at a minimum, three operating systems and three 
browsers, independently designed and constructed. That way, if a 
software virus were to incapacitate the most widely used version of 
either, we could have enough residual capacity to continue at least 
partial operations and recover from the damage.
    For a single entity to control 80 to 90 percent of the market 
for PC operating systems, Internet browsers, e-mail readers, and 
office productivity software (which can also spread viruses) is 
clearly a significant security risk. To then allow that monopoly to 
actively attempt to drive out its remaining competition would hardly 
be in the public interest.
    It's now up to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to decide whether 
the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice is a just solution. But from where I sit, it contains too 
many loopholes to measureably effect Microsoft's behavior, much less 
bring about the kind of diversity that would enhance our security.



MTC-00011016

From: GERALD THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:44pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    PLEASE SETTLE WITH MICROSOFT. 90% OF THE WORLD LOVES MICRO 
SOFTWARE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT. I DON'T USE THER 
INTERNET EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ON MY DESK TOP. I GOT A LOCAL CO. & I 
HAD NO TROUBLE DOING THAT. THANK YOU



MTC-00011017

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:47pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as 
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the 
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by 
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting 
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in 
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards. 
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism 
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
    To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not 
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to 
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not 
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets 
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to 
overturn this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Goldberg
    Brighton, Massachusetts
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011018

From: MARSHALL MOORE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT...
    Dear Judge:
    I am a member of the high tech community here in Virginia--and 
am also a lawyer. Although I do not practice antitrust law, I have 
had the opportunity to research the PFJ which you are now charged to 
review. It appears to me that there are a number of VERY serious 
issues with the PFJ, including:
    a. No Penalty For Undisputed Illegal Activity. Microsoft is not 
penalized for any past misdeeds. In other words, they are being 
allowed to retain all the profits gained from their illegal 
activities. Every court involved with this case has acknowledged 
that Microsoft broke the Anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement, 
the Justice Department is sending the message that this sort of 
anticompetitive behavior is acceptable. Every large potential 
monopolistic company is being told that they can get away with this 
sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the gains 
made from such conduct. In other words, get away with as much as you 
can until the Justice Department brings an action. There is every 
incentive for future monopolists to engage in this type of conduct 
and no incentive not to.
    b. Middleware: As part of the Agreement Microsoft is required to 
allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and 
allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware 
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not 
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate 
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into 
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to 
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and 
delete all the competitor's middleware.
    c. Communication Protocols: The Agreement states that Microsoft 
must now share information on how its middleware and server software 
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute 
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked.


This is a huge loophole, because if Microsoft wants to drive a 
competitor out of business, they just attach the specific type of 
software the competitor is involved with to their Windows platform. 
Once they do that, they do not have to share the coding information 
that allows the competitors software to work with Windows, thus 
driving the competitor out of business. Once the competitor is out 
of business, Microsoft can separate the software from the Windows 
package, sell it separately and derive huge margins. In addition, 
Microsoft does not have to disclose their information to companies 
that in ?their view? do not have a ?viable business?. This loophole 
will allow Microsoft to prevent new software start-ups from forming 
which, to say the least, is very bad for competition, and therefore, 
the consumer.
    Judge, I know that you will be looking at these matters closely. 
I trust that you will do the right thing for ALL Americans, software 
producers and consumers alike, and remedy these very serious 
problems in the PFJ.
    Thank you for your time.
    Marshall Moore, JD
    Charlottesville, VA



MTC-00011019

From: George Lien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:56pm
Subject: Good for the government!
    Recent decision for NOT allowing Microsoft to give away so-
called free Microsoft software and trainings for schools is one of 
the best decisions ever made.
    Ask the software gaint to pay in cash. That's right--CASH!
    And let the schools decide what to do with the cash.
    Regards,
    George Lien



MTC-00011020

From: Jack Bond
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Bond
C25 Scotty Hollow Drive
North Chelmsford, MA 01863
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering 

[[Page 25393]]

superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Bond



MTC-00011021

From: Tom Fennell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have sent a previous message quite a while ago but I am 
sending another to state my feelings on this lawsuit. I have been 
using computers for many years now. I became involved before there 
was a company named Microsoft. In those old days, computers were a 
real challenge to operate. Then Microsoft came along and changed 
things forever. Their development of an operating system which took 
all of the confusion out of the normal users hands was a godsend. In 
all of the years since the introduction of their first system, I 
have never had a really serious problem with their so called 
``bundling'' of various other software packages within their 
operating systems. I have used Netscape as my browser with no 
problems. In no way did the operating system ever interfere with my 
choice of browsers. I help many people with their computer systems 
as a hobby in my retirement. I never hear any negative comments from 
anyone regarding problems with their operating systems (Microsoft 
Windows 95, 98, ME). Yes, they experience problems but it is usually 
related to their inexperience in operating their systems. Yes, they 
do experience conflicts with programs but they can usually be 
resolved. All of the resources that have been expended against 
Microsoft is a waste of taxpayers money and should be stopped. I 
urge you to look at this and find a way to resolve this in a fair 
and reasonable manner.
    The longer this drags on the more damage our economy will suffer 
especially in the present state of the economy of the United States 
and also the world economy.
    Respectfully,
    Tom Fennell
    La Quinta, Ca.



MTC-00011022

From: Stephen North
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:10pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Judge;
    I see two major problems (and many minor ones) in the PFJ as 
currently configured.
    1. The Three-Man Compliance Team. The Agreement requires a 
three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the 
Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice Department 
another, and the third will be chosen by the two people already 
appointed. This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of 
their work, and cannot impose fines. Their sole remedy for 
infractions is informing the Justice Department of the infraction 
and then the Justice Department will have to commence litigation to 
stop the infraction. The Justice Department does not need a 
compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is doing something 
wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke screen.
    2. Market Share. All other businesses in the U.S. market that 
have a ninety percent market share are considered per-se monopolies 
and are regulated or have some sort of government oversight (i.e. 
utilities, local phone companies, cable companies etc.). This is 
done because it is in such a company's best interest (in the 
interest of their shareholders) to abuse their position. In other 
words, to gain maximum shareholder value, they are almost required 
to abuse their position. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this 
general rule? Does Microsoft not try to gain optimum share value for 
their shareholders?
    Certainly these are just two of the issues in a very flawed 
agreement. As a member of the consulting services industry for 
almost 20 years--my firm depends on a free market for software in 
order to support and satisfy our clients. Microsoft has, from my 
personal experience, never believed in free markets -and has done 
everything they can to extend their defacto monopoly at the expense 
of many, many others.
    Please make the Dept of Justice do what is right for America--
not just for the current Administration and their fat cats.
    Thanks.
    Stephen North
    Chicago ILL



MTC-00011023

From: Michael Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please find my comments related to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Kramer Stonewall Capital LLC [email protected]
277 West End Avenue # 5D
New York, NY 10023
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take advantage of this public comment period and 
voice my opinion on the recent events surrounding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. First of all, this lawsuit is frivolous and has 
become a political game for those wanting media attention. Much time 
and money has been wasted on lawsuit, and now that a settlement has 
been reached, I think it is ridiculous to spend even more time on 
it.
    It is very clear that the attorneys general of the dissenting 
states are more interested in pursuing a populist political agenda 
than in protecting consumers. The interests of consumers will be 
best served to put this issue behind us and allow the American 
economy to recover from its current recession.
    In the past decade, I think that Microsoft has created the 
single best consumer product in the market. Given how much time 
people and businesses spend using computers, a very small price is 
paid for a superior product. I see no indication that there has been 
any harm to consumer interest in Microsoft's products or their 
practices. Please uphold this settlement and allow Microsoft and our 
economy to return to normal.
    Like most settlements, this settlement in the Microsoft case has 
been reached after much effort, under the supervision of a court-
appointed mediator. The settlement goes above and beyond what was 
called for in the problematic issues of the suit. To ensure its 
compliance, there has been a Technical Committee created to oversee 
any possible dispute resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Kramer
    cc: Representative Jerrold Nadler



MTC-00011024

From: Jeremy Svinkelstin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft case, which has been pursued for a decade by the 
federal government, has ostensibly been pursued on behalf of 
consumers. However, the very consumers it has sought to protect are 
being harmed by the detrimental impact the case has had on the 
technology market and the entire national economy, which is now 
mired in a recession. Furthermore, the American taxpayers have had 
to fund this prosecution, diverting government funds from 
investigating harmful antitrust violations and illegitimate 
monopolies. The proposed settlement encourages product-choice, 
promotes product innovation, and provides non- Microsoft related 
computer and software manufacturers with confidence in marketing 
their own products. It also frees up Department of Justice resources 
to pursue antitrust violations that currently harm the public.
    Therefore, I humbly request that this litigation concerning 
Microsoft be stopped, and the proposed settlement accepted. 
Commercial success should not be penalized.
    Very truly yours,
    Jeremy D. Svinkelstin
    20 Huntington Street,
    New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1002,



MTC-00011025

From: Drinkwine, Paul
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Renata B. Hesse,
    I am an employee in the technology industry who resides in 
Washington State. I strongly encourage breaking up Microsoft. The 
business practices Microsoft uses continuously stifle progress in 
this industry and promote a culture of homogenous second-rate 
technology.
    It is a well know fact that the products Microsoft produces are 
not the best around 

[[Page 25394]]

yet everyone must conform to their technology 
due to the monopoly they hold on the industry.
    I wish my State had the integrity to join the other states suing 
yet understand that the money Microsoft brings into this state is 
addictive.
    Paul Drinkwine
    Avocent--Redmond U.S.A.
    Testing and Certification
    www.avocent.com



MTC-00011026

From: fred l mckinney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:22pm
Subject: MY COMMENT
FRED MCKINNEY
2903 COUNTRY WAY
DANVILLE, IL. 61832
2174423322
    Dear DOJ,
    I'm a share holder of MICROSOFT, AOL, SUN MICROSYSTEM, 
INTEL,CISCO,ECT.
    I have been following this case for years, and feel that SUNW, 
AOL has use the DOJ to try to slow down Microsoft. They have use 
every tactic to try to hurt the consumer and MSFT. They feel its bad 
for MSFT to have a monopoly, BUT ITS OK FOR THEM TO CREATE OR HAVE 
ONE TO THEMSELVES.
    This bickering between who should own MSFT HAS TO STOP. I feel 
the monopoly MSFT has is legal. The consumer and the manufactures 
decided which software we wanted the most. If any company was to 
come up with a software package better than MICROSOFT WINDOWS, we 
would dump them the next day or months ahead. Microsoft has a CHOSEN 
MONOPOLY, BECAUSE WE THE CONSUMER WANTED IT THIS WAY. FIFTEEN YEARS 
AGO NO SOFTWARE PACKAGE WORK WITH EACH OTHER AND IT WAS A PAIN 
SETTING IT UP. MSFT came along and eliminate all of these setup and 
non compatible hardware and most of all ``NO STANDARD AMONG 
VENDORS''.
    These companies I own want the consumer and businesses to be at 
their mercy when it come to installation. This create more revenue 
for them and also establish the setting as ``YOU HAVE NO WHERE TO 
GO'' SO YOU HAVE TO CALL US!!! MSFT HAS CHANGE ALL OF THIS. We have 
a company which feels its being chase all the time by their 
competition. They brag how they will ``EAT MSFT LUNCH'' , AND 
everyone knows MSFT thrives on this competition. It's not about 
money , its about WHO'S THE BEST . NOT ALL THE PRODUCTS I USE IS 
MICROSOFT. I USE COREL QUATTO PRO 8 , THIS IS EXCEL COMPETITOR.
    I USE PRINTSHOP DELUXE, I DON'T EVEN USE MSFT HALLMARK VERSION , 
AND I EVEN HAVE A LICENSE VERSION OF THIS SOFTWARE... IF IT WAS FREE 
I STILL WOULDN'T USE IT.
    Final:
    MSFT is not forcing their software on us, WE DECIDE WHAT WE WANT 
TO USE.
    Fred Mckinney.



MTC-00011027

From: tina power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:24pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Judge;
    Like you, I am a woman professional in a man's world. I have 
been in the software industry for 15+ years--and I have again and 
again seen Microsoft take unfair advantage of its position in our 
industry to crush, kill and destroy potential competitors.
    The PFJ doesn't even begin to address the true situation--and 
trusting MS to effectively police itself is trusting the proverbial 
fox to guard the ever shrinking henhouse.
    I was especially angered to see that our Dept of Justice didn't 
even pay attention to the guilty verdicts that have been unanimously 
rendered in the case.
    I work for a medium sized company here in the Boston area. We 
have had to dance the MS dance for ever...and we would LOVE to have 
a viable competitor to work with. Unfortunately, MS has done 
everything they can to tie us (and our software systems) to their 
lousy OS...and that is not fair. It's especially not fair to allow 
them to capitalize on thier OS monopoly to force really crappy 
application software down our throats...but that is exactly what 
happens.
    Please, please, please--send the PFJ back to Justice and tell 
them to put the interests of consumers FIRST--before that of wealthy 
campaign contributors.
    Thank you very much.
    tina power



MTC-00011028

From: Dennis Behrens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department Of Justice,
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Window's operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dennis Behrens
    921 Lewis Blvd
    Sioux City, IA 51105-3254
    A very happy Microsoft consumer!



MTC-00011029

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
Subject: Tunney Period Comments
    I'm highly opposed to further burdens on Microsoft as sought by 
the remaining States Attorney General. My reasons are these:
    1) The responsible Judge insisted on settlement talks which were 
then accomplished and agreed to by more than half (I count the 
federal gov't as equivalent to multiple states) of the participants. 
The remaining 9 are malcontents driven more by special interest 
companies (seeking to gain by litigation what they couldn't gain in 
the free market) than by fairness. They should be harshly described 
as such by DOJ.
    2) The whole anti-trust case against Microsoft strikes me as the 
government interfering in a rapidly moving technology arena where it 
is ill-equipped to render judgment The anti-trust laws are not 
modern enough to deal with new technology company competitive 
issues, wherein companies rise and fall in a very few years 
depending on their decisions and products and where they must be 
agile and proficient enough to win consumer confidence.
    3) Consumers often make their purchasing decisions in a single 
season. The government can't even develop an internal concensus in a 
season, much less analyze, bring to trial and administer impartial 
judgment.
    4) Some consolidation of influence within a single company, in 
the case of high tech, is often highly beneficial to the consumer. 
Lack of a publicly-endorsed Windows standard would have left 
millions of PCs unable to converse, yielding a tower of Babel, 
instead of a reliable, innovative, efficient new network of 
communication.
    5) Although I've followed the case reasonably closely, I have 
not yet seen much from Microsoft's detractors concerning how 
consumers like me have been hurt. My own feeling is that Microsoft 
products continue to grow exponentially in capability, while growing 
only very modestly, if at all, in price. I feel Microsoft's economic 
impact to me has not been adverse, but on the contrary has been 
highly beneficial. DOJ should force dissenting states to provide an 
economic-impact-to-consumers (not business competitors) statement as 
a basis for any complaint. This statement should be reviewed by 
competent economists. I'm skeptical such a statement could be 
assembled.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Sussman
    [email protected]



MTC-00011030

From: Grant K Rauscher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:32pm
Subject: bootloader
    let alternative OS's live


[[Page 25395]]

    http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/
    thanks
    Grant K Rauscher
    GeeKieR Enterprises
    http://www.geekier.com/



MTC-00011031

From: Charles Dooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT STINKS
    Dear Judge:
    I recently was forwarded Jim Barksdale's recent comments before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thought that some of them were 
very powerful arguements against the current Microsoft monopoly. I 
especially found compelling the following:
    ``If the PFJ had been in effect all along, how would it have 
affected Netscape? More important, how will it affect future 
Netscapes?
    Impact on future Netscapes.
    As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous 
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994, 
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture 
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into 
being in the first place. The work of Marc Andreesen's team at 
the University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would 
likely have remained an academic exercise. An innovative, 
independent browser company simply could not survive under the PFJ. 
And such would be the effect on any company developing in the future 
technologies as innovative as the browser was in the mid 1990s.
    That leaves the question of whether Microsoft itself would have 
developed browser technology necessary for Internet navigation. My 
belief is that Microsoft would not have developed that technology. 
It is abundantly clear that Microsoft viewed the browser and the 
Internet itself as the principal threat to their core business of 
selling operating systems and applications for desktop computers.
    This PFJ allows Microsoft to employ the full fury of its 
multiple monopolies against anyone who would develop a browser or 
any other technology that might have the potential to challenge any 
aspects of Microsoft's business. I have reviewed the PFJ, and my 
impression continues to be that it is a document whose principal 
purpose is to protect Microsoft from competition, and not to open up 
the market to competition with Microsoft. I note, again with 
pleasure, that the remedy proposal by the state Attorneys General 
who remain as plaintiffs would significantly open the market up to 
competition.
    If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it is 
unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture capital 
financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a tragedy for 
our nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the PFJ is 
"good for the economy." If the PFJ goes into effect, it 
will subject an entire industry to dominance by an unconstrained 
monopolist, thus snuffing out competition, consumer choice and 
innovation in perhaps our nation's most important industry. 
And worse, it will allow them to extend their dominance to more 
traditional businesses such as financial services, entertainment, 
telecommunications, and perhaps many others.
    Four years ago I appeared before the committee and was able to 
demonstrate, with the help of the audience, that Microsoft 
undoubtedly had a monopoly. Now it has been proven in the courts 
that Microsoft not only has a monopoly, but they have illegally 
maintained that monopoly through a series of abusive and predatory 
actions. I submit to the committee that Microsoft is infinitely 
stronger in each of their core businesses than they were four years 
ago, despite the fact that their principal arguments have been 
repudiated 8-0 by the federal courts.''
    Judge, that is absolutely what my experience as a software 
programmer tells me. I am not an expert in antitrust matters--but 
what Microsoft is doing is wrong.
    Please help correct the deeply flawed document that our Justice 
Dept produced.
    Thank you.



MTC-00011032

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Yes, for Microsoft and a Big No to You the government that 
continues to harass a very important and wonderfully worthwhile 
Company. While you folks wonk away doing God knows what, Microsoft 
actually does help real people in real time. Get off it. Now.
    Loraine Grover



MTC-00011033

From: John Stage
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT IS A PREDATOR
    Dear Judge:
    I am a former Microsoft executive--and please excuse me but I'm 
not going to give you my full name in this e-mail for fear of 
reprisal.
    Net-net: there is no question that MS explicitly targets 
competitors and uses every dirty trick in the book (and more) to put 
them out of business. I've seen it--more than once.
    I have no idea why the DoJ totally rolled over on this 
one...looks like they just took a dive. Maybe MS is giving tothe GOP 
big time--I don't know. But I do know that the PFJ is a very bad 
deal for everyone who's not a MS millionaire--and even many of us 
that used to work there are not proud of what we did.
    I'd ask you to make sure that Microsoft is held accountable to 
the same laws as everyone else. No one else will.
    John
    Seattle, WA.



MTC-00011034

From: Joseph Gadoury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: Joseph Gadoury
17 Mason Rd.
Dudley MA 01571
508-943-2516
[email protected]
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my satisfaction that the Department of 
Justice has finally decided to settle the anti-trust litigation 
against Microsoft. While I believe that the original case against 
Microsoft was weak, unsubstantiated, and not necessary, this 
settlement seems to satisfy the public and the government's 
interest.
    The terms of the settlement keep Microsoft accountable, foster 
innovation and increase competition.
    According to the settlement, Microsoft has agreed to submit its 
technology and business practices to a three-person, government-
appointed, technical oversight committee. This committee will be 
responsible for ensuring Microsoft's compliance with the agreement, 
and resolving disputes. Microsoft has also agreed to change its 
licensing practices to ensure that the maximum amount of technology 
is available to the industry.
    This settlement goes beyond the government's original complaints 
and ensures that the company will be a viable entity in the future. 
I am sure you'll agree that it is time to turn our national 
resources to more fruitful and productive ends.
    I hope that this is the last step in this drawn out process and 
that the government ceases all further federal action.
    Thank you for your careful consideration,
    Joseph Gadoury
    [email protected]



MTC-00011035

From: Claude David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I for one do not consider it unfair for Microsoft to bundle 
``goodies'' with their operating system, so long as nobody is 
compelled to use them. Their competitors are free to make their own 
products as attractive to the consumer as possible. But they don't 
seem to be prepared to give anything away ``for free'', yet they 
have the nerve to ask the federal government to use its resources to 
dismantle a company that this country should be so very proud of.
    There are matters of greater moment that the department of 
justice and this government should be devoting their resources to. 
Let us not shoot ourselves in the foot for the sake of a few greedy 
CEOs and jealous States.



MTC-00011036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement 100%. This case has dragged on far too 
long. Too much of the taxpaper s money has been spent that could 
have spent on other issues. This has been a witchhunt against 
Microsoft for the 

[[Page 25396]]

beginning. Approve the settlement and let s move 
this Great Nation forward.
    God Bless You and God Bless America.



MTC-00011037

From: Mike Moses
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Moses
323 N Narberth ave
Narberth, PA 19072
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Moses



MTC-00011038

From: Michael Giesler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Giesler
11111 109th Pl NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Giesler



MTC-00011039

From: Chad Myers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chad Myers
6437 Clay Allison Pass
Austin, TX 78749
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chad Myers



MTC-00011040

From: Elias Gelat
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elias Gelat
7004 Live Oak Dr
North Richland Hills, tx 76180
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    E.A. Gelat



MTC-00011041

From: Steve Sheldon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Sheldon
15233 Greenhaven Way
Burnsville, MN 55306
January 13, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 



[[Page 25397]]

be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Sheldon



MTC-00011042

From: Adam Bockhorst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:06am
Subject: Decision shows awareness of school budgetary realities
    Judge Motz' decision to scuttle this ill-conceived settlement 
was appropriate. He clearly recognized that organizations making 
procurement decisions quite often follow a path of least resistance. 
Allowing Microsoft to seed thousands of school districts with free 
equipment and products likely would have made the adoption of its 
products a fait accomplit, at least in some districts. A Federal 
district court would have been complicit in expanding the very 
monopoly recognized by the DoJ--a nasty example of the goverment's 
left hand not knowing the activities of its right.
    Adam Bockhorst
    Computer Assistant, Kirkwood School District
    St. Louis, Missouri



MTC-00011043

From: Jeffrey Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:44am
Subject: Objection to Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final judgment 
on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found Microsoft 
guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics and 
practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the 
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court 
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft 
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in 
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also 
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly 
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing 
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. 
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the 
proposed settlement:
    The PFJ does not effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact 
allows Microsoft to leverage its current market position, or should 
I say, Monopoly to expand its business into several other technology 
markets.
    Under the general rule, most monopolies in the past, such as 
AT&T and Standard Oil, are either broken up or carefully regulated. 
However, Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general 
rule of thumb altogether. Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe 
reprimands by the Department of Justice will not radically alter 
Microsofts existing operation methodologies. As history has proven 
over and over again, Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly 
position at the expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is 
done such as breaking up Microsofts business into several parts or 
meting out severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue 
to implement illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that 
the Proposed Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
    Respectfully,
    Jeffrey Jimenez
    3061 La Selva Ave Apt C203
    San Mateo, CA 94401



MTC-00011044

From: Jeff Daniell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Daniell
PO Box 1444
Lampasas, TX 76550
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Daniell



MTC-00011045

From: Jonathan Hughey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jonathan Hughey
4240 Cuesta Dr.
Irving, TX 75038
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan N Hughey



MTC-00011046

From: Steve Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Moore
1306 Island View Ct.
Nashville, TN 37214
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Moore


[[Page 25398]]



MTC-00011047

From: John Thibodeau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/13/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Thibodeau
366 S W Main St
Douglas, Ma 01516-2505
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John Thibodeau



MTC-00011048

From: Jesse Cook
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jesse Cook
5784 Ohara Ct
Boise, ID 83703
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Cook



MTC-00011049

From: Chance Cartwright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chance Cartwright
12 Perkins
Lampasas, TX 76550
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chance Cartwright



MTC-00011050

From: Hao He
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to the rest of the world that justice is only as much 
as you can afford it in the USA.
    Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly and has used that 
monopoly position for its illegal gains. However, Microsoft can get 
away with its wrong doings without any effective punishment.
    Dr. Hao He
    Software Architect
    The above statements only reflect my personal views.



MTC-00011051

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  1:43am
Subject: Microsoft
    This is a terrible settlement. I do feel that those in the 
Justice Department that made it were well meaning, but they simply 
do not understand what Microsoft is doing. Most developers will flat 
out tell you that Microsoft is an impediment to technological 
advancement, they are a monopoly, and have massively abused that 
position.
    I could go on and on. But let me just make one example, Internet 
Explorer.
    Microsoft was nonexistent in the development stages of the Web. 
But they ended up cloning the good work of others, and then using 
their monopoly power to drive those who were the innovators, out of 
the picture.
    This is what Microsoft does every time. They were a decent and 
innovative company, up to the mid 90s. But that changed. Microsoft 
no longer creates, it does not innovate. It clones, and uses its 
monopoly position to drive those that really do innovate out, 
leaving Microsoft with control of the market.
    If this is not monopoly abuse, what is? Please tell me. And what 
is really frightening, is what Microsoft has planned for the future.
    Frank Kalich
    Software Engineer
    915 Alabama
    Lawrence Kansas 66044
    785 331-3413



MTC-00011052

From: Jason Carreiro
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Carreiro
376 Hailes Hill Rd.
Swansea, MA 02777
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling 

[[Page 25399]]

progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Carreiro



MTC-00011053

From: Mayssam Sayyadian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  5:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    hello,
    In my opinion, the proposed final judgement:
    Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft 
was found to have illegally protected.
    Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community. Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was 
found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market.
    Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging 
software into the monopoly Windows operating system.
    Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it 
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
    Regards,
    --MS.



MTC-00011054

From: Blanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What is it called when there is centralized control of private 
enterprise? What could be better for consumers than to have Big 
Brother sitting in Microsoft's office, at Microsoft's expense, 
watching every move it makes?
    What a great precedent for the future of business and the ``free 
market'' in the ``free world''!
    What could be better for fostering personal resolve, self-
reliance, and independence of mind, than to have a ``higher'' agency 
make the decisions for OEMs, ISP, and OSPs who lack the courage to 
reject exclusionary agreements or refuse to do business under those 
terms, since otherwise they'll miss out on the large piles of money 
they're sure to make in the deal?
    What could be better than knowing it is a crime to protect the 
integrity of products for which a company is liable, and that it is 
required by law to include the competition in the designs? Perhaps 
this country should also include a link to communism in its charter, 
to provide it equal opportunity to attract our attention and fealty.
    If I owned Microsoft, I would say to hell with it--let them use 
Linux. After all, there is no obligation to continue producing this 
operating system, make improvements or add features to it, or 
creating new software applications--and all the while suffering 
imposed indignities in order to operate the business.
    Nor are consumers obliged to continue using computers and 
software: these things are not like air or water or food, and large 
numbers of people hardly know how to use them. Those who do have 
become used to their benefits, with much thanks to Microsoft, among 
others. But it *is* possible to live without them: it was not so 
long ago that they did not exist as choices for the average 
consumer.
    Where is the harm to consumers from products they are free to 
desist from using, when they are not required to go to the store and 
put their money down to buy any of them, but once having done so are 
at liberty to roam the internet and discover all sorts of other free 
downloadable software to use in replacement, limited only by their 
time and curiosity?
    I have experienced no harm from using Microsoft's products, but 
this settlement, though less destructive than the previous proposal, 
makes me ill.
    Blanc Weber



MTC-00011055

From: Frank Bohnem
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  2:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Bohnem
3247 Nowhere St
T.O., CA 91362
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Bohnem



MTC-00011056

From: Mike Larson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  2:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Larson
3672 Falcon Way
Eagan, MN 55123
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be 


[[Page 25400]]

over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    It's time for this anti-consumer trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will put competition 
back in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom, when this 
dinosaur is laid to rest.
    Then Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and 
creating better products for consumers, and stop wasting tons of 
time and other valuable resources on litigation. It's their 
competitors who can't make it in the marketplace, not the end users 
and ordinary people who have to rely on their computers to be 
productive, who benefit from this anti-trust, anti-consumer exercise 
in poor government.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers, not making it possible for other businesses 
to keep making products that people don't want and won't buy. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of successful corporations, people who actually use the 
software--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 
the winners and losers. With the chains off the high-tech industry, 
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies, instead of funding to the tune of 
hundreds of thousands or more dollars the parties and politicians 
who represent these market-loser businesses.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Larson



MTC-00011058

From: Charleen Hoffman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  3:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charleen Hoffman
PO Box 80927
Fairbanks, AK 99708-0927
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charleen Hoffman



MTC-00011059

From: Jani Pohjanraito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  4:05am
Subject: Antitrust Division's case against Microsoft
    Dear Sirs!
    I would simply like to point out that before just competition in 
the OS and browser market and developing field is ensured (even in 
the simplest possible manner), the consumers will be paying extra 
price, and software developers will have 3-4 times the workload per 
project.
    --For years Microsofts unethical conduct (middleware bundling 
with OS, 'harassment' of other browser developers, ..) has been 
slowing down the developement of the web, made developers job next 
to impossible and has in my experience reduced the quality of 
services available to consumers on the internet.
    --All of the above at the consumers expense: people have paid 
for the operating system, believing that Windows will increase their 
productivity and possibilities, when it, in fact, has brought 
limitations to the services available to them. This is an outrage!
    --Web-service and software developers have been paying the 
dearest price: Microsofts business conduct has forced developers to 
invest at least 3-4 times more time and energy in bringing their 
products to markets--extra work is required because developers have 
to 'work their way around' the limitiations and barriers set by 
microsoft (brought forward by the OS and the browser and programming 
language `discrimination' practiced by Microsoft).
    I hope you really consider this case as the case of the future 
of efficient internet and desktop computing--it is 'make it or break 
it' case. Outcome will be either oudated and limited OS/Service 
market, or contemporary and rich OS/Service market. Best Regard, 
Jani Pohjanraito Web Developer since 1996



MTC-00011060

From: Peyman Afshani 78179805
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In particular, the proposed final judgement: Fails to reduce the 
application barrier to entry that Microsoft was found to have 
illegally protected; Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM 
technology community; Fails to remedy the illegal injury that 
Microsoft was found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the 
browser market; Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of 
middleware programs including browsers, media players, and instant 
messaging software into the monopoly Windows operating system; Is 
ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it lacks 
an effective enforcement mechanism. In addition, Microsoft has 
unlawfuly gained popularity for its products, by forcing everyone 
that installs Winxxx to use its applications including Players, 
browsers, editors and ... and in this ``proposed final judgement'' 
there is no solution for this unlawfuly gained popularity. This 
popularity consists of forcing end users, which are mostly novice or 
beginers to forcibly use Microsoft's product and have no desire to 
change the software.



MTC-00011061

From: Angela Watkins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Angela Watkins
Rt1 Box173-6
Durant, Ok 74701
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Angela Watkins



MTC-00011062

From: Matt Frankford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Matt Frankford
17000 sw 17th cir
ocala, fl 34473
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 


[[Page 25401]]


government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew D. Frankford



MTC-00011063

From: Charles Salber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Salber
3833 Edgewood Ave.
Fort Myers, FL 33916-1054
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Salber



MTC-00011064

From: Craig Hillemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  5:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU[RESENT IN PLAIN 
TEXT] January 13, 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft U.S. 
Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Pursuant to provisions of the Tunney Act, I am writing to 
express my opinion on the settlement reached between Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice in November of last year. Apparently nine 
states are seeking to further prosecute the Microsoft Corporation. 
As both a taxpayer and purchaser of personal computer software 
products, I do not believe that the antitrust case against Microsoft 
should be dragged out any longer.
    Please be reminded that the purpose of antitrust laws in the 
United States is to protect consumers like me, and not to support 
the self-interests of competitors in the marketplace. The parties 
that goaded the DOJ and states to file antitrust actions were 
Microsoft's competitors, not consumers like me. Microsoft's 
competitors are obviously envious of Microsoft's success, but the 
reason Microsoft has succeeded is simply that Microsoft has 
consistently delivered better and more cost-effective products, and 
furthermore fostered a large market and environment inviting 
competition. As result, enormously more quality, low-cost hardware 
and software is available from both Microsoft and other vendors for 
Windows than for any other operating system (e.g, Linux, MacOS, 
Solaris, etc.).
    Microsoft's Windows product provides excellent functionality for 
the price. As a consumer, I want Microsoft to bundle as many apples 
as possible in Windows, and I do not appreciate hardware vendors 
modifying Windows. My computer-using colleagues feel similarly. 
Windows as provided by Microsoft works well on a remarkably wide 
range of computer hardware. The apples included in Windows provide 
very helpful functionality with dependable stability and user 
interface consistency. Their inclusion does not prevent other 
vendors from developing products with greater functionality, but 
does provide a useful standard for other vendors to try to surpass.
    I have read the entire Appellate Decision for this case, and 
based on the facts, including my own experience as a computer user, 
I do not believe bundling Internet Explorer in Windows was unlawful. 
Frankly, I appreciate the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows. 
Microsoft's alleged misrepresentation of Java support may have been 
questionable, but the context was a struggle with Sun, one of 
Microsoft's biggest detractors, for control of the language. 
Microsoft has since pulled back support for Java in Internet 
Explorer. Anyway, the proposed settlement goes well beyond any 
reasonable remedy in view of Microsoft's possible misstep.
    Under the circumstances, the agreement made between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice was certainly more than fair. All 
parties directly involved (not counting Microsoft's competitors) 
seem satisfied with the terms reached. Microsoft has agreed to 
license its software and applicable intellectual property rights to 
its major competitors. Moreover, Microsoft is planning to format 
future versions of Windows so that its competitors will be able to 
introduce and endorse non-Microsoft software in Windows. Microsoft 
has also agreed to disclose Windows line code to competing computer 
software producers. However, I personally will want the full version 
of Windows from Microsoft without it being hacked by other vendors. 
I do not believe litigation should continue in this case. There is 
no need to drag the suit out any longer. You and you office should 
back the settlement.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Craig L. Hillemann
    1229 Crestover Road
    Wilmington, DE 19803
    302-479-0432
    [email protected]



MTC-00011065

From: Tom Kirkwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  5:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Kirkwood
4362 Rice Street
Shoreview, MN 55126
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial was well worth the cost in taxpayers' 
dollars, was a blessing to consumers It is high time for this trial 
result in real changes that will stop the destruction of small 
companies. Many Americans think the federal government should have 
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like 
Microsoft will be aware they cannot do these kinds of things, and 
not waste valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Kirkwood



MTC-00011066

From: Faraz Hach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.

    Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft 
was found to have illegally protected;
    Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community; Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was 
found to have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
    Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging 
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
    Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it 
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
    Microsoft forced the users to work with its components like ie 
(Internet Exp . . .)
    --F.Hach



MTC-00011067

From: larry mahoney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:42am
Subject: End Microsoft Anti-trust Case
    Please put a STOP to this Clinton-era corporate witch hunt!!!
    Thank you.



MTC-00011068

From: mark oliveri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mark oliveri
626 chestnut st
mifflinburg, pa 17844
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    mark oliveri



MTC-00011069

From: John Quigley


[[Page 25402]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Quigley
15 e charlotte ave
wyoming, oh 45215-2113
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John E Quigley II



MTC-00011070

From: David Secret
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:19am
Subject: I urge you do not go light on Microsoft: Consumers and 
innovation will suffer.
    This was sent via US Mail, I decided to copy you via EMail due 
to the risks of US Mail to Washington these days.
    I wanted to make you aware of the opinions from industry 
regarding the irreparable harm Microsoft has done to the computing 
world. They have been blatantly anticompetative, destroying any 
competition they could using their OS monopoly and continually 
expanding into new areas by leveraging their OS: Web Viewing, Web 
servers, Music(Media Player). No one can compete in any area if 
Microsoft simply bundles their product with their Operating System 
for free at first, they stave out all competition then charge 
because they are the only viable player in the market.
    They were blatantly apathetic at the charges leveled at them by 
the court, they were mocking and even faked an exhibit in order to 
show removing Internet Explorer from a Windows computer was 
harmful.(Even though any computer expert knows it isn't).[There were 
different icon layouts on the computers during the video, showing it 
had been cut and another computer used instead of the original.]
    It is clear, without stiff penalties and controls on their 
future actions a company like this will not deviate from it's 
illegal ways. I urge you to consider a breakup of Microsoft into at 
least two companies: Operating System, and Office. This would at 
least stop some of the leveraging they are doing in those two areas 
which they control.
    Respectfully,
    David Secret
    MIS Director
    Kearney Development Co., Inc.



MTC-00011071

From: Smith, Janet (123)D 101 (126)Indianapolis(125)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  8:36am
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Please see attached letter. USAGSmith_Janet_1009_0109.doc.dot>>
    Janet
    9115 Hague Road
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46256
    January all, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen, I write you regarding the recent 
Microsoft settlement. It is foolish, to me, to continue to dissect 
an agreement that has been meticulously negotiated for three years. 
How can it be, that there may be further litigation on this subject? 
The terms that have been outlined are in the interest of the entire 
IT sector and can only benefit our position in this highly 
competitive global market.
    The many concessions that Microsoft has made in this settlement 
are directed toward promoting non-Microsoft software. This alone, 
shows that Microsoft is working in the interest of our entire 
technology industry. Some of the major changes they are willing to 
make include licensing, marketing and even future design. Using 
these terms as a guideline to get back to business is helpful to the 
consumer, the IT sector and our economy as a whole.
    Please help to get this settlement moving forward. We need these 
guidelines to help pull our IT sector together to be productive in 
this global market. Let's make sure that there be no more litigation 
against this settlement. I thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Janet Smith



MTC-00011072

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing this to urge you to reject the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe the settlement as it currently stands would 
neither punish Microsoft for the anti-competitive actions it has 
taken in the past, nor prevent it from repeating them in the future.
    On the contrary, it think it would provide MS with additional 
ways to strengthen it's
monopolistic grip on our country's home and business software.
    I believe that the only remedy to this problem is to subdivide 
Microsoft into separate business entities that would compete in the 
marketplace with each other and other technology companies.
    Sincerely
    Tom Szymanski



MTC-00011073

From: Agnes S Heller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  8:52am
Subject: settlement
    At a time when companies like Enron fraudulently squandered the 
public's moneys(mine included), it would be best that one of the 
most outstanding and profitable companies be allowed to operate 
without further interference. The states that do not wish to accept 
the settlement are going to spend a lot of their constituents money 
for lawyers' fees. This whole suit was ridiculous, belly aching by 
the likes of Scott Mc Neily and his company. He and the other 
competitors are just not smart enough! That is what it comes down 
to.
    The stockholders of Microsoft should sue the justice dept.You 
are NOT SERVING PUBLIC INTEREST by further litigation.
    Sincerely Agnes Heller
    (Microsoft stockholder)



MTC-00011074

From: Mark Rapp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Rapp
96 Linn Drive
Verona, NJ 07044
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.


[[Page 25403]]

    Sincerely,
    Mark Rapp



MTC-00011075

From: Doody, Scott (FUSA)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    As an informed consumer, I find Microsoft's corporate behavior 
extremely distasteful. I find Microsoft's products useful, but 
lacking any meaningful alternative I have no basis for comparison. 
Microsoft is clearly a monopoly and clearly continue to abuse their 
power even in the face of antitrust prosecution. Even the recent 
``settlement'' propagates their power by placing them in a position 
of prominence in one of the few software markets they don't 
control--our children's schools.
    The development of Passport and the other components of .Net is 
truly alarming, given Microsoft's incompetence with security, 
obsession with controlling ``revenue streams'' and thinly veiled 
contempt for consumer's wishes. I plan on purchasing a new computer 
soon, at which point I will feel forced to wipe Windows XP from the 
hard drive (having paid for a license) and installing an older 
version of Windows, simply to safeguard my privacy and financial 
safety.
    The best way to correct a problem like Microsoft is market 
forces, but the market is powerless in the face of Microsoft's 
influence over software developers and would-be competition. The 
role of the government is to protect the market from influences such 
as Microsoft, and I am amazed at the lack of progress on the part of 
Federal prosecutors. I have read excerpts from Bill Gates' testimony 
to Congress, in which he states that maligned Microsoft is not a 
monopoly and that consumers have plenty of choices. However, 
confronted with the breakup of his company, he then states that 
Microsoft is central to the entire personal computing industry; and 
that thwarting the company will imperil the entire industry. This, 
from a man who stated under oath that the does not know what 
``market share'' is.
    The DOJ needs to get busy.
    Scott Doody
    Project Manager
    Phone: 302.282.7713
    Graphic Production Services (GPS)
    First USA Bank



MTC-00011077

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letters have been faxed to Ashcroft and R. Santorum.



MTC-00011078

From: Michael Willems
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:31am
Subject: MS
    Hello,
    For what it is worth, our company, while it tries to take a 
balanced view and uses many MS products, feels that MS is hindering 
the industry by its anticompetitive behavior, and that a split-up is 
the only remedy that will provide both justice and growth. Please 
persevere.
    Sincerely,
    Michael
    Michael Willems [email protected]>
    Chief Technology Officer
    Digital View Group
    http://www.digitalview.com



MTC-00011079

From: Robert Wheat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement

January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a software developer, I am writing to voice my opinions on 
the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft 
Corporation. I want you all to know that I support the settlement 
that has been negotiated with Microsoft.
    It is my belief that the only reason the Justice Department is 
in the middle of this is due to other competitors' inadequacies and 
complaining (we are starting to call it--the software complaint 
lobby--if you can't sell it then go complain to your congressman). 
When Lotus was suing everyone for similar spreadsheet programs, we 
all thought--hire more developers--not lawyers. Make your product 
better to compete with the competition. That is what I do all day 
long. Where is Lotus today? I believe the products that Microsoft 
develops are the best in the business. It is the job of the 
competition to improve their products in order to be successful as 
well. It is my understanding that this settlement was reached after 
extensive negotiations with a court appointed mediator. As I 
understand it, Microsoft is not getting off that easy. They are 
required to make specific changes due to the settlement. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose even more 
interfaces that are internal to the Windows' operating system 
products for use by its competitors.
    I urge that no further action be taken against Microsoft. We all 
want to get on with the next generation--not the last generation 
software.
    Robert Wheat
    13423 Post Oak Glen
    Cypress, TX 77429
    [email protected]
    281-890-4566



MTC-00011080

From: norris dalton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:39am
Subject: Bill and the Boys
    If any part of your paycheck comes from tax dollars, you should 
give it back. Try this. Stop using any and all software that is made 
by Bill and the boys. See how far you get. People like you are the 
reason he has done as well as he has.
    Norris A. Dalton
    [email protected]




MTC-00011081

From: Thomas Angioletti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am a software developer in the defense industry and have been 
following the anti-trust case against Microsoft. I do not think that 
the proposed settlement adequately punishes Microsoft for it's 
crimes against the American people in restraining free trade, nor 
will it discourage Microsoft from similar future behavior. Microsoft 
has shown no remorse for its actions; anything short of a heavy 
penalty (such as removing copyright protections for Windows) is an 
insult to the rule of law. Furthermore, attempts to monitor 
Microsoft's good behavior in the fast-paced tech industry will 
always be several steps behind.
    In my view, the software industry, due to the high fixed cost 
and very low marginal cost of developing software, has a weakness 
for monopoly formation. We need a government willing to actively 
police our industry and enforce the antitrust laws.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas C. Angioletti



MTC-00011082

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Please read the letter I've attached. It expresses my opinion on 
the Microsoft case.
    Thank you,
    --Greg Ambrose
    1250 Warwick Furnace Road
    Pottstown, PA 19465-8903

January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to inform you of what I think about the recent 
settlement between the Justice Department, and Microsoft. I think 
that this case should not have been brought to court in first place. 
However, it is in the best interests of all parties involved to 
accept this settlement and move on to other things.
    The terms are more then fair and reasonable for the government 
to accept. Microsoft will be making a number of specific changes to 
their products, and business practices. For example, Microsoft has 
agreed to license its Windows operating system products to the 20 
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including 
price. Also, the company has agreed not to retaliate against 
computer makers who ship software that compete with anything in its 
operating system.
    As you can see, Microsoft did not get off easy in this case. 
Please accept the settlement, and take no more action against 
Microsoft. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Ambrose
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00011083

From: Will Hitchcock

[[Page 25404]]

To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was inspired to submit a comment by an article posted on Sun's 
web site. This article continues to convince me that we live in a 
world rife with thieves. Thieves that now have the US government 
working for them. I will keep this short since there must be 
thousands of comments to sift through. Microsoft has only done one 
thing wrong: a contract violation with Sun in terms of their 
implementation of the Java Virtual Machine (they added Windows 
specific logic). Absolutely that is a contract violation and should 
be punished. Every single other allegation is bogus. The US 
government has become the henchman for Oracle, Sun and the rest of 
the thieving whiners out there. Microsoft crushed Netscape because 
they bundled internet explorer. Good. I would like to sell a 
calculator program but Microsoft includes one in the operation 
system. Is a calculator part of the operating system? Isn't 
Microsoft using it's monopoly to keep me down? Shouldn't everyone be 
forced to pay for my calculator program?
    Please keep in mind, that the only true monopolies (100% market 
share) that have existed in the history of this nation were created 
by the government. The free market has never yielded a monopoly--not 
a single one. Standard Oil's market share was smaller than 
Microsoft's for example. The government's law suit is an attack on 
freedom and therefore the foundation of modern civilization.
    Thanks for your time.
    Will Hitchcock
    Principal Software Engineer
    Delphi Technology Inc.
    Phone: (617) 494-8361 x2046
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00011084

From: Jeff Whicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to add my voice to the 9 States and the European 
community in a plea to reject the proposed Microsoft settlement. The 
settlement provides no remedy for the past abuses of Microsoft's 
monopoly, and it provides no effective means of insuring that 
Microsoft will end it's abuse of that power.
    I was very dismayed that the Monopoly was not broken up. Why 
should developers such as myself be given sub-standard documentation 
concerning Microsoft's APIs while Microsoft's own developers are 
given access to ``secret'' APIs? A company which owns the most 
popular operating system simply has no business being in software 
development. They are competing unfairly with the very community 
which MADE their operating system popular in the first place.
    If the software community had not propelled Microsoft's OS to 
the forefront then it would be understandable that Microsoft would 
develope software to be written on it's own OS in an attempt to make 
their system more useable. But it obviously didn't happen that way. 
Microsoft first let companies like Wordperfect, Netscape, Lotus, 
Quicken, and thousands of others develope software for their OS. 
Then after their OS was already a monopoly, they went into direct 
competition with those companies and they did so entirely unfairly. 
They developed secret APIs which were never documented for the 
general community of software developers while documenting them 
fully to their own developers.
    I realize that the proposed settlement prohibits Microsoft from 
continuing this practice. Yet the settlement does not make any 
remedy for the damage this practice has already done. Nor is any 
agency with real teeth going to be able to enforce the agreement. If 
Microsoft again fails to completely document it's own API's they 
will simply claim it was a mistake. And then only if they are 
caught. They need to be broke up.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Whicker



MTC-00011085

From: Chris Lovett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Lovett
2155 Grand Brook Circle
Orlando, FL 32065
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Lovett



MTC-00011086

From: Gene Averett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gene Averett
3889 Marlesta Drive
San Diego, CA 92111
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and 


[[Page 25405]]

judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gene Averett



MTC-00011087

From: Scott Prugh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Scott Prugh
    2840 N Lincoln Ave
    Chicago, IL 60657
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Prugh



MTC-00011088

From: Account CONSULT-SMI AI/SM-I
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  9:58am
Subject: Trial against MS
    ** Confidential **
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to state my opinion concering the proposed 
settlement. As a software developer, the quality of my own work 
depends on the quality of intermediate software like operating 
systems platforms or databases. Also, the level of stress that I 
have to face within my daily work with computers and the bearability 
of the job I do are majorly influenced by the actions of global 
players like Microsoft or Sun Microsystems.
    Therefore I speak as a person directly concerned by Microsoft's 
policies and stategies and I cannot resist but to tell you that the 
business part of my life would be much more bearable if Microsoft 
would stop their ongoing seeding of discord.
    Lately I bought a notebook and after a complete market survey, I 
found out that there was only one Notebook-vendor who could offer me 
notebooks without a preinstalled Windows operating system. If you 
purchase a Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung or other notebook, then you 
can choose to take this graphics card or the other, you can 
configure every aspect. However you are always forced to purchase a 
Windows OS along with it. This is so up to the very day. If you just 
make the test, walk into a PC store, choose a particular notebook, 
and ask if you could purchase this laptop without a preinstalled 
windows, then you will always hear that this is not possible.
    A fair competition between software vendors will only be made 
possible again, if some institution like the DOJ controls Microsofts 
behaviour. ---- Another aspect is that within a free-market economy, 
the best product should win the customers approval. Microsoft 
however is using its predominant position in todays market to force 
all software vendors into using their proprietary windows protocols.
    In the earlier days I used to program windows software and my 
work was hard. Nowadays I am only using Java software coming from 
Sun Microsystems. Since that time, my work is much easier. My Point 
is, that although Java technology is superior to anything Microsoft 
has to offer, it is not going to spread among the people and its use 
it not going to increase because Microsoft again is using it 
monopoly to suppress Java technology.
    If microsoft was acting in a fair way, they would reckon that 
Sun Microsystems is offering a product that is open and top-nodge an 
would try to catch up. Microsoft could even adopt Java technology 
because it is free. Nonetheless Microsoft prefers to use its 
monopoly to boycott this outstanding technology and therefore 
suppress the improvement of software products directly.
    By any means necessary, microsofts superciliousness has to be 
abolished. Laws must have a substance in reality and may not only 
look good on a piece of paper. It is necessary to apply strict 
regulations to Microsofts business mien.
    Whatever judgement you decide on, it must be so made that it 
guarantees that Microsoft cannot go on acting as they do now in the 
future. To my mind the measures proposed so far are not sufficient. 
Microsoft not only deserves a higher punishment--it will be 
necessary to ensure a change in behaviour. Microsoft has had a 
chance to show that they are willing to cooperate but shows no sign 
of this. For example, Applte has integrated Suns Java platform 
within its newest operating system called Mac OS. Linux 
distrubutions come with a preinstalled Java platform. However, 
Microsoft is not integrating a modern Java-platform into its 
brandnew windows XP.
    At the same time Microsoft is trying to become the only holder 
of people's electronic identities by setting up a proprietary 
platform that holds peoples secure identities. This project is 
called Project Hailstorm and Microsoft is using its monopoly once 
more to push this technology forward, not only ruining better 
proposals but also leading into an era where your complete identity 
as a person is hosted by one private company!!!
    best regards
    Sascha Coenen



MTC-00011089

From: Ernie Bello
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ernie Bello
610 Park Ave Apt. B10
Rochester, NY 14607

January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ernie Bello



MTC-00011090

From: David Henry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft case comments
U.S. Department of Justice
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Refer: Microsoft case.
    I understand the DOJ is taking comments about the Microsoft 
Case. Microsoft was clearly a case of monopolistic behavior. The 
company should have been split into four separate operating units.
    1. Operating Systems.
    2. Internet related software.
    3. All other software.
    4. All other business activities.
    Why this wasn't done is a mystery to me.
    David Henry
    1620 S. 118th E. Ave.
    Tulsa, OK 74128-5636



MTC-00011091

From: Frederick R. Brock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed remedy fall's short of curtailing 
microsoft's monolpoly. I am a developer and devlope primarly java 
based enterprise systems, this means my inability to recieve windows 
OS specificate API (application programmers interface) information 
does not effect my ability to deliver a solution to my clients, 
however, from a price perspective I just spent 200.00 (199.99) on my 
UPGRADE to windows XP and just a quarter before I spent another 
200.00 dollars on my UPGRADE to windows 2000. I can't afford MS 
Office which is near 1000.00 for a UPGRADE with the full version 
over 1000.00+ they can charge this because they are a monopoly!!!!. 
I have been around computers my entire life and watched as DOS 
evolved into windows and MS grew to become a monopoly. I used to be 
able to buy a Office suite of my choice from 5 or 6 vendors for 
about 79.00 dollars, MS drove all of them under and now If I want to 
be compatible with the rest of the world I have to pay MS 1000.00+ 
for a sub-quality office product. I can't afford to do this as a 
small business, I wish their was an alternative. But since you will 
not separate them or at least cap the price increases that they pass 
on to the consumer for MINOR updates to their product, no other 
vendor will have a chance.
    In addition, when I installed my new XP upgrade it ruined 6 
months of work, some of which I cannot re-create, I can't get my 
money back so I guess I am stuck. This is a big problem!!!!. Their 
software now answers questions and chooses options for you, as a 
result it ate my HD to crap with out giving me, the owner of the 
computer, a chance to intervene, thier should be a law against this. 
I lost time and money. Frederick R. Brock
    Brock Consulting Inc.


[[Page 25406]]



MTC-00011092

From: Raymond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:29am
Subject: Comment on about the MS settlement
    Hello:
    I work with schools and community centers in the LA area. Many 
schools and community centers would like to use Linux as there main 
educational Operating System. After watching the video of Dan Kegel 
at Linux Public Broadcasting Network I also conclude that Microsoft 
must not create barriers to prevent MS applications from running on 
Linux via the WINE project. If the DOJ would enforce this one 
condition the US software market would likly return to a competitive 
market again. Most importantly disadvantaged ethnic groups and poor 
schools would have the technological skills they need to compete in 
the job market. Please watch the video at www.lpbn.org to find out 
what the really bright tech people of this country are saying. The 
link is www.lpbn.org.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond Stedng



MTC-00011093

From: Brian Densmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice and honorable judiciary, A peer of 
mine sent this letter to you. I have previously sent in a letter. 
But this perhaps goes a little bit further in explaining my thoughts 
on the matter.
    Some of my Information Technology background:
    B.S. Computer Science
    8 years professional programming employment
    20 years computer experience
    10 years professional computer/computerized hardware experience
    30 years electronic experience (started experimenting age 10)
    In other words I have extensive knowledge of things electronic 
(of which digital computers are but one branch of) from both a 
hardware and software level.
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement has been a capitulation by 
the current administration and the Department of Justice to the big 
money donations of the Microsoft lobbying and campaign 
contributions. The US won this case! Why has the justice department 
settled for this woefully inadequate solution to Microsoft's 
conviction as a monopolist? This is the penalty phase of this case, 
and yet there appears to be no penalty for Microsoft, and in fact if 
implemented as written, could actually increase Microsoft's 
Monopoly. Exactly! Microsoft has already been found guilty. While I 
can understand the DOJ backing off the separation of Microsoft, that 
doesn't mean they don't need to be reined in and made to behave like 
a good Monopolist. It has been apparent for some time Microsoft has 
flaunted the law in many aspects. They have taken other peoples 
copyrighted and or patented software and changed the copyright or 
patent information and sold it as their own (just one example: STAC 
software's stacker compression software). This kind of lack of 
morals needs punishment. They just keep doing this over and over, 
and getting way with this! this is a travesty ands a mockery of the 
American legal system. Don't let Microsoft manipulate the law to fit 
them; manipulate Microsoft to fit the law.
    For true justice to be served, the courts must decide the 
punishment and not the politically (and monetarily) motivated DOJ. 
For this reason, the settlement as currently written must be 
REJECTED!
    I would like to point out several flaws in the settlement and 
recommend some alternatives that would seem to make more sense. I 
refer to the settlement found at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm
    III.A Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM... Not only 
should Microsoft not be able to punish the OEM, but OEM pricing 
should be disallowed for Microsoft. The OEM vendors should be 
required to pay full retail price for the operating system and 
office products, and pass this on to the consumer. In other words, 
strike paragraphs
    III.B.2 and III.B.3 from the settlement. Furthermore, the OEM 
should be required to list this cost as part of total cost of the 
machine, and offer all machines they sell with either alternative 
operating systems, or no operating system at all installed. This 
would provide clear disclosure to consumers of the ``Microsoft tax'' 
they are paying with each new computer system. Allowing users to 
remove items from a purchased machine is inadequate, as they have 
already paid the ``tax'' and Microsoft goes unpunished.
    III.D ...Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, ...the APIs and related Documentation... While this is a step 
in the right direction, Microsoft should be compelled to make 
public, not simply to certain companies but to the public, all 
operating system APIs, all communication APIs, and every single file 
format, current and future, created or used by any of their 
products. The interfaces and file formats should not be allowed to 
be considered ``intellectual property'' that would allow Microsoft 
to restrict access by imposing ``royalties or other payment of 
monetary consideration'' simply to interface with their products. 
This will promote true competition by allowing other companies and 
the open source community to write programs that can be fully 
compatible with, and have equivalent functionality to the Microsoft 
monopoly products. APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are 
exactly that. They are an interface; a way of communicating between 
two closed systems. If Microsoft hides the APIs, then only Microsoft 
can communicate with that system. Microsoft does disclose a number 
of APIs, but not the ones they use ``internally''; which allows them 
to ``integrate'' certain things (like Explorer) into the OS. No one 
else can use these APIs without reverse engineering them, because 
they are hidden from the public.
    II.J--No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties...
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license... This 
paragraph reads like a major legal loophole for Microsoft that will 
allow them to get away with 
keeping large parts of the interface to their systems a secret by 
saying that the disclosure would ``compromise the security'' of that 
system. The APIs and file formats I mentioned above should be 
excluded from this paragraph.
    Section V. Termination
    B. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found 
that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic 
violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time 
extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with 
such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
    So if I have interpreted this paragraph correctly, if Microsoft 
fails to comply with this settlement in the first five years, their 
punishment is to spend two more years not complying!? How is this an 
incentive for Microsoft to comply with the settlement? This section 
completely removes what few teeth this settlement ever had. This 
section should be completely rewritten such that if Microsoft fails 
to comply with the settlement, any and all intellectual property not 
in compliance will be forfeited to the public domain. That would be 
an incentive for compliance!
    In summary, the Microsoft punishment for being a convicted 
monopolist should include the opening and documenting of all 
Application Programming Interfaces for their products, the 
documented specification of all file formats for documents created 
by their products should be public domain, and the complete 
prohibition of the discounts and ``bundling'' Microsoft currently 
engages in with hardware vendors. Additionally, the legal loopholes 
should be removed, and the penalty for non-compliance should be 
severe.
    A settlement that truly encourages competition is very much in 
the national interest and national security. A study released a year 
ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, pointed out that the use of Microsoft software actually 
poses a national security risk. We can not allow any one company to 
maintain a strangle hold on something as important to this nation as 
the information technology infrastructure of this country. It is 
very important for the future of this nation that a careful and 
deliberate penalty that restores true competition to the software 
marketplace be implemented.
    Thanks you for your time,
    Jim Herrmann
    Kansas City, Kansas
    KC Linux Users Group--to unsubscribe send mail to 
[email protected] Enter without the quotes in body of message 
``unsubscribe kclug''
    Thank you,
    Brian Densmore
    Associate
    mailto:[email protected]
    CompuTech Business Solutions, Inc.
    http://www.ctbsonline.com/
    (816) 880-0988 x215



MTC-00011094

From: Paul Farwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:34am


[[Page 25407]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to voice my concerns about the proposed December 7th 
settlement of Microsoft antitrust case. These views are my own and 
not those of my current or previous employers.
    As an experienced software developer, I see effects of 
Microsoft's monopoly on the software industry that are probably 
invisible to the average software user. It's been my responsibility 
to investigate and recommend software tools to my employer. In many 
cases, there is a reluctance to consider anything other than a 
solution using Microsoft tools and technology. The reason is not 
necessarily because Microsoft solutions (like Visual C++ or Visual 
Basic) are considered better than the alternatives. It's the concern 
that alternative solutions have no built-in support for deploying 
applications on the Windows operating system, which a large majority 
of our customers use. Java technology is a really good case in 
point. For years, Java has had the potential to provide users with 
complete and powerful applications on their web browsers in a 
browser-independent and OS-independent way. It is a much better tool 
for writing sophisticated web applications than HTML, which has 
become the de facto standard for web user interfaces. Most users 
don't realize how primitive most web applications are because they 
don't know what the alternatives are. While it is true that HTML is 
an open standard, one not controlled by Microsoft, it is also very 
limited. HTML is good at presenting text and pictures, but is a poor 
technology for developing a good web application, like a on-line 
scheduling tool. It amazes me that even today most web applications 
are displayed in HTML (and JavaScript). Why is that? Java applets 
would be the primary tool used in web applications if Internet 
Explorer had not won the ``browser wars''. IE's support for applets 
is poor because it offers out-dated (or nonexistent) Java support. 
Microsoft has attempted to introduce their own active content 
solution, ActiveX, but this solution limits the software developer 
to Microsoft technology on both the front-end (the browser) and the 
back-end (the middleware services on the network host). It works 
only if the software developer takes the `Microsoft everywhere' 
approach.
    It is very frustrating to see software vendors avoid Java 
technology, not because of the merits or demerits of the technology 
itself, but because of the perception that Microsoft won't support 
it. Ordinary consumers of software may not fully appreciate this, 
but it does have a powerful effect on the kinds of products we can 
deliver to them.
    As a remedy, it makes sense to me that Microsoft supply a 
complete and up-to-date version of Java with every copy of the 
Windows operating system. This would remove the burden from the 
software vendor of struggling to get good Java support on an end-
user's computer. That way, Java technology could be judged on its 
merits, not on whether Microsoft supports it.
    Paul Farwell
    Software Engineer



MTC-00011095

From: richard brosnahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I was disappointed in the proposed settlement the Department of 
Justice offered for its case against Microsoft. Where the case found 
them guilty of using their monopoly power to crush and stifle 
competition, the settlement does little to punish them, and provides 
nothing to deter them from doing it again.
    It has been determined that they used illegal tactics to become 
what they are. Stifled competition means innovation is stifled as 
well. I urge you not to accept the weak settlement proposal. It is 
in the public interest that a stronger penalty be applied, as well 
as stronger remedies to prevent Microsoft from continuing their 
illegal practices.
    Best regards,
    Richard Brosnahan
    Senior Software Engineer
    Xperts, Inc
    email: [email protected]
    web: http://www.xperts.com/
    CC:Richard Brosnahan



MTC-00011096

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    After reviewing the Prohibited conduct section it appears that 
Microsoft is left to review its practices and conduct business in a 
fair and unbiased manner and given the facts to date this has not 
been the case. I would recommend that this settlement not be granted 
in its present form and sent back to the courts.
    Steve Lochren



MTC-00011097

From: Liz Lindsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to let you know I support the Bush Administration 
and Microsoft in their desire to settle this lawsuit. Not only do I 
believe that Microsoft has done nothing to harm me as a consumer, 
but I believe my life has been greatly improved because of all the 
technology brought to the market because of Microsoft. The advent of 
the home computer has transformed my life and 'raised the level of 
all boats'. To prove there's no monopoly in my home, we own a 
Macintosh, and we also run Unix on our server, though we use 
Microsoft on our PCs. I have never been forced to use Bill Gates 
products, and the ones I do use, are used through choice. Explorer 
is without a doubt a better product than Navigator. There is a 
choice, and 90% of users agree. The 10% who use Netscape are proof 
that the government had a specious argument for `monopoly'. Stop 
wasting my taxpayer dollars on this trial. Drop this case! Free up 
Department of Justice resources to pursue antitrust violations that 
currently truly harm the public.
    Elizabeth Lindsey
    2125 Colorwood Ct.
    Fuquay Varina, NC 27526
    919-557-4966



MTC-00011098

From: Marvin Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:38am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I would like to submit some argument as an amicus curiae. The 
Attorney General gave me your e-mail address, for which I am very 
thankful. I am aware that this amounts to a large amount of reading, 
but until today I had no idea of how to contact you. I strongly 
request that you take the time, especially to read the information 
posted at the first URL in the enclosed message. I lived and worked 
in Silicon Valley (San Jose, California) from 1973-1995 working in 
the semiconductor industry. As such, I am pretty well acquainted 
with the history of Microsoft and Bill Gates, which the huge 
majority of people in this nation are totally unaware of. Secondly, 
I strongly suggest that my 5-point ``settlement'' proposal contained 
in the enclosed letter is (in all likelihood) the only one that will 
do true justice to the people of this nation.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marvin Gardner
    Boise, Idaho
From: Marvin Gardner
To: Connecticut AG; Florida AG; Iowa AG; Kansas AG; Massachusetts 
AG; Minnesota AG; Utah AG
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: Microsoft lawsuit
    Bill Gates, beyond question, is an incorrigible (non-lethal) 
sociopath at core. (If you would like a quick biographical (personal 
and business) proof of that statement, you can find it on a page I 
authored and posted a couple of years ago: http://sonsofliberty.org/
wrecking--crew/bill--gates.html In a nutshell, Gates obtained his de 
facto control of both, the home computer and internet software 
fields by the skillful (and totally unprincipled) ``use'' of legal 
stalling. By financially outlasting his opponents through an endless 
series of challenges and appeals until his opponents dropped out. 
Only one company--Apple Computer (which was financially as large as 
Microsoft at the time of the law suit)--has been able to financially 
``stay the course'' with Microsoft, and Apple won! Last summer, when 
the Appeals Court threw out Judge Jackson's penalty (but verified 
the verdict) and the U.S. Attorney General publicly announced it 
would ``settle'' with Microsoft out of court, I contacted U.S. 
Senator Larry Craig's local (Boise, Idaho) office, sat down with one 
of his employees and ``educated'' that employee on what Microsoft 
had done throughout its history in order to control the software 
business, and set down the steps (conditions) that are necessary in 
any ``settlement'' that would bring justice to the people of 
America. And I urged that employee (with whom I have a friendship) 
to urge the DC office to have Sen. 


[[Page 25408]]

Craig pass on to AG John 
Ashcroft. (Craig and Ashcroft have had an especially close personal 
relationship, through their ``off duty'' participation in the 
``Singing Senators'' quartet.) I have no idea as to whether or not 
the Senator did pass the information on to Ashcroft. I only know 
that, just a few weeks later, the DoJ announced it's (total cave-in) 
to Microsoft. I also know that, sometime during the first 10 months 
of last year (the FEC printout I received last November does not 
give the dates of donations, just the ``span of time'' during which 
they were given), the Microsoft PAC gave $6,000 to Senator Craig. 
And considering the fact that, in all the years Craig has been a 
Senator and Microsoft has been donating to Congressmen, it had given 
a grand total of only $2,000 total to Craig, I wonder. Anyway...
    There are 5 points that any settlement with Microsoft will have 
to include in order for the American people (and software 
businesses) to at last have justice:
    1. All Microsoft software must be ``open architecture'' (a 
technical term that the software industry understands).
    2. Microsoft must publish and distribute free of any and all 
charges the source code of any and all software it releases.
    3. There must be total unbundling of all Microsoft task-specific 
software.
    4. All future Microsoft software releases must be 100% 
``backwards compatible'' with all earlier Microsoft editions of 
similar programs.
    5. All future Microsoft release must contain no ``blocking'' of 
competitors' software. I feel certain that some of you might not 
understand the importance of some (if not all) of those 5 points, so 
I will have an explanation of the ``why'' of each of them posted on 
my personal web site by tomorrow (January 11). It will be accessible 
at www.bigskytel.com/marvingardner/MS--justice.html
    Yours truly,
    Marvin Gardner



MTC-00011099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my opinion the entire pursuit of MSFT is unwarranted and the 
DOJ is overstepping the boundary of what the antitrust laws were 
intended for. The entire endeavor was pushed by a bunch of crybabies 
who couldn't compete in the market place and hence enlisted big 
brother in their fight. MSFT's bundling is a non-problem for me...I 
just don't use those features I don't want.
    Charles Dryden
    232 Rebecca Dr #447
    Alamo, Tx. 78516
    956-783-7410



MTC-00011100

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Brad Wellington and I am professional software 
developer currently living in New York. I am very concerned about 
the Microsoft trial because I believe that the remedy will have long 
term effects that will be felt for years. I am particuarly concerned 
about Microsoft's bundling of middleware into their operating 
system. The proposed setllement doesn't address this behavior, which 
I find quite disturbing. There is absolutley nothing in the 
settlement that would prevent them from ``Netscape''-ing another 
product. I am fairly certain that Microsoft's long term goal is to 
build almost all software worldwide and knock everyone else out of 
every market, and they plan to use windows to do it. Look at Windows 
XP. They are trying to stop Kodak from selling digital imaging 
software, they are trying to eliminate AOL instant messanger by 
embedding Windows Messanger into XP. It is outragoues to me that 
they have compley ignored the court's verdict of guilty. They know 
it is too late for Netscape, they have been pretty much destroyed 
however XP is trying to replace even more products. It is in your 
power to keep this from happeneing again and I implore you to do so. 
Thank you.
    Brad Wellington
    Senior Software Engineer



MTC-00011101

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow things to move forward. The Settlement is tough but 
fair. Further litigation is a waste of resources.
    Thank you,
    Joanne Pickrel



MTC-00011102

From: Karthik Raman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karthik Raman
1234 Alphabet Lane
Denton, TX 76205
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I went to a website that wanted me to send an email with some 
crap about how the DOJ wasted money on the MS trial. However, I feel 
that is far from the truth. MS is a horrible monopoly, and I wish it 
had been broken up. Thus, I hope NOT for the trial to be dropped, 
but I wish the DOJ could be more aggressive in their strategy to 
bring down MS.
    Sincerely,
    Karthik Raman--Senior at the Texas Academy of Mathematics and 
Science



MTC-00011103

From: Logan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:37am
    I submitted comments earlier concerning this case. I need to add 
one more. What are you smoking? Give Microsoft the opportunity to 
close out one of the few remaining competitive markets existing in 
the computer industry? Make them ``pay'' 1.1 billion (less than one 
month's income) in ``free'' software for one year? Free is the 
correct term. You propose that they give away ``refurbished'' 
machines that have 
already been amoratized and written off and software that they 
create internally? They don't even have to pay for packaging! Why, 
come to think of it, they don't even have to pay the taxes on the 
sales because technically it's a donation.
    Then, when the year is up and it's time to upgrade? Hmm, I 
wonder who's going to end up paying for Johnny to get his new 
version of Office... Could it be... oh... ME? Are my taxes going to 
help Microsoft expand it's control over the market? Wow, what a way 
to solve the problems of the needy. I wonder how much Microsoft 
stands to make on this deal. Sounds like it could be in the billions 
of dollars in continued revenue over the next ten years or so. 
Billions of dollars of MY TAX MONEY.
    I thought we elected intelligent people to work in our 
government. Oh, wait I'm mixing my adjectives. I meant GREEDY when I 
wrote intelligent. Sorry, my mistake.
    Amazing. Simply amazing. We'll as long as you've got it, why 
don't you share whatever you're smoking so we can all bear this 
royal bending over a little more gracefully. I'm sure with the lobby 
money you're getting from Microsoft to write this case off you can 
afford to buy a little extra for us little people.
    Thank
    You,
    Logan
    Creative Director, USinns.com



MTC-00011104

From: Lon Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a concerned citizen I would like to voice my opinion on this 
matter. Microsoft has been found guilty of using their monopoly 
power to gain market share and effectively reduce or eliminate 
competition in numerous areas. The current proposed remedy of 
requiring them to ``donate'' products, services and/or money to the 
educational institutions in the United States is unacceptable. This 
will basically allow them to capture the one final market that they 
are not the dominant force in, effectively driving Apple, SGI, Sun 
and others out of that market. The penalty for using and abusing a 
monopoly should be harsh and impose a true restriction on the 
companies abilities to use this power again. Since the break up 
option is not an option and a 1 billion dollar ``donation'' to 
education only expands their market share and power to influence, 
some other remedy needs to be found that truly punishes this company 
for their past actions.
    The bottom line is they broke the law, stifled competition, 
eliminated innovation and leveraged this power to gain wealth, power 
and mass market control. This needs to be dealt with in a manner 
that prevents further abuse and sends a clear message that 
corporations will be held accountable to the laws of the United 
States of America.
    In this time Americans expect and demand that our government 
acts in the best interests of the citizens and not some corporation 
that still refuses to admit it did anything wrong. 

[[Page 25409]]

Please do NOT 
accept the current remedy being proposed and go back to the drawing 
board and find something that will stop this from becoming another 
example the citizens of America use when explaining how corporations 
get special treatment.
    Lon Baker



MTC-00011105

From: richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:21am
Subject: Stop the harrassment
    When is the government going to stop the harrassment? The 
government made a mistake going after IBM years ago and I think the 
government is making another big mistake. I am a consumer and I 
don't think Microsoft has done anything wrong. I don't see the 
anticompetitive practices, Microsoft's products are cheap. Yes, 
Microsoft is huge and is the big bully on the block, but, how can 
you say that there is no competition in the software industry when 
everything around us is thriving. Microsoft has set the standard and 
it is difficult for other companies to accept. There would be chaos 
if there were no standard Windows operating system like Microsoft's. 
I see no problem with Microsoft's practices so, and let's more on. 
Richard L. Bernal



MTC-00011106

From: Chad McCaslin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:21am
Subject: final settlement on Microsoft
    The final judgement obviously falls short of having Microsoft be 
responsible for the problems they cause in forcing consumers to use 
microsoft products. Just take a look at the latest operating system 
from Microsoft and you will see that they are now attacking the AOL 
Instant Messaging Service. I personally installed XP Professional 
Windows operating system from Microsoft. It automatically loads 
Windows Messager into the OS, but that is not the bad part. The 
problem is that the Windows Messaging client cannot be de-installed. 
I tried to remove it from the task bar. On re-boot, microsoft placed 
it back into the task bar. I tried to remove the program files 
directory and received registery errors. I tried to remove all 
references to the Windows Messager from the registery and was happy 
for a short with the product not running on my system until the next 
windows upgrade when all of a sudden the product was back. I have 
not configured it nor do I use it (I use AOL IM instead) but it 
keeps telling me I need to set the NET stuff and start using it. 
(this is known as badgering) Somehow Microsoft needs to get that 
this is wrong and to stop doing it. The current penalty for this 
type of issue is not even noticable for Microsoft. Obviously, 
Microsoft believes they can keep it in the judicial system until the 
problem is a faint memory and the companies that they destroy along 
the way are just a memory. We are a nation that is suppose to punish 
those who do wrong even if it was a long time ago. How are we as a 
nation to promote free enterprises to startup when the monopoly 
(microsoft) will uncut them before they start. People have a right 
to use the software they want and to not have big brother force us 
to use their software. Internet Explorer was one example, Now that 
that problem is basically behind Microsoft, they are attacking the 
next product. How do we stop this? The best way is to make it not 
profitable to cause this type of pain. Even if it is long ago, make 
sure that the impacts to Microsofts ability to cause similar future 
problems are extremely hampered. If that causes the price for 
microsoft products to increase, then maybe other vendors will have a 
chance to make a difference. When criminals cause the same problem 
over and over, many states take on the principal of three strike and 
your out. Well, Microsoft has been doing this for alot more than 
three strikes. When will we make a stand and say that is enough?
    Chad McCaslin
    Raytheon
    972-205-5753
    [email protected]



MTC-00011107

From: Ted Marquis Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 12, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust suit. I would like to see this case concluded as soon as 
possible. As a small business owner, I am concerned by the fact this 
case was brought against Microsoft at all. Microsoft has been an 
innovative, competitive company. Companies, especially those engaged 
in high-tech endeavors, must remain competitive to remain in 
business. I do not agree with punishing Microsoft for its ability to 
remain competitive.
    I do, however, believe the case should be settled as rapidly as 
possible. To achieve this end, Microsoft has made a variety of 
concessions that go above and beyond the scope of the lawsuit. I do 
not necessarily agree with the concessions made, as they appear to 
be overly restrictive. For example, the creation of a technical 
oversight committee, which will monitor Microsoft's business 
practices, seems overly intrusive to Microsoft. Despite my belief 
that Microsoft is doing more than should be required, I support its 
decision to make such concessions so this case will settle. I 
appreciate your review of my comments, and hope to see this case 
settle as quickly as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Marquis
    President/CEO



MTC-00011108

From: Daniel L. Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't tell you how pleased I am with the rejection of 
Microsoft's settlement proposal.
    Microsoft has demonstrated over the years that it seems to 
believe that it is a nation unto 
itself, with its own rules, regardless of what others experience.
    What particularly strikes me is the arrogance of their proposal. 
I would call it a great demonstration of a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. 
Thank you for your astute and wise decision. Microsoft's arrogance 
will continue, until it realizes that there are other people and 
companies that have as much rights as they.
    I commend your decision.
    Thank you,
    David L. Cole
    14 Abbott St.
    Greenfield, MA 01301



MTC-00011110

From: David Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ,
    I would only comment on one part of the settlement. Microsofts 
proposal to donate computer equipment and software to needy schools. 
Although I applaud the concept, I think it does not server as a 
punishment to the monopoly. Microsoft does not yet dominate the 
education market. This is simply an opertunity for them to try to 
gain dominance in the market.
    I strongly recommend rejecting any part of the settlement that 
might increase Microsofts market share in the education market.
    Dave Graham
    520 N. Sherwood St. #31
    Fort Collins, CO 80521
    (970) 484-4577
    [email protected], [email protected]



MTC-00011111

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case has taken a protracted period of time. A 
short summary of the situation indicates that not much has been 
accomplished in regard to the basic issue of concern. The public 
interest would be best served by moving away from the concept of 
anti-trust and more to the point of providing competition to 
Microsoft. Let s see the competitors take more of a role of 
competition and less weining about Microsoft s success. T



MTC-00011112

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement seems fair and I think the public is more than 
ready for this lengthy expensive ordeal to be over. As a neighbor of 
Microsoft I would love to see this resolved so that residents of 
this area have one less source of economic insecurity.



MTC-00011113

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is fair to all concerned. I hope the deal with the 
others involved will be setteled in the same way.


[[Page 25410]]

    Anything less will not help America.



MTC-00011114

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I firmly believe that this farse of a case has gone on long 
enough. While everyone and his dog has been trying to railroad 
Microsoft other companies have more blatantly defied the most basic 
of monopoly laws to move against this company. In the end what has 
that gained the consumer? Nothing but scandal. It was clear in the 
beginning and is still clear to me now that although what Microsoft 
DID do (which wasn't nearly as much as what is being done by OTHER 
firms in the same industry) was wrong this was nothing more than 
jealousy and hatred of a man who did us all a huge favor for a 
relatively little price. Without Microsoft the computer revolution 
would have stuck to a few hackers doing a few things until Apple got 
their footing. What do I think of the settlement? Good enough if not 
overly strict. Let Microsoft go.



MTC-00011115

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Approve the Microsoft Settlement it provides more than 
enough remedy to the charges presented in the case. It is not in the 
public s interest for this trial to drag on any longer than it 
already has. Lets settle and get on with the remedy to correct any 
wrong that has occurred and we can put this behind us.
    Respectfully
    Mr. Joe Public



MTC-00011116

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the litigation against Microsoft I think the waste 
of gov t money has gone on log enough!!
    Thank you
    CB



MTC-00011117

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs It is time to finalize the settlement of the Microsoft 
case. It has dragged on beyond any reasonable period. It is unfair 
of the government to serve as henchmen for Microsofts competitors 
any longer. You have reached an amiable settlement. It is time to 
close the case.
    Marjorie Larsen



MTC-00011118

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Govt. should have better things to do with the 
taxpayers dollars than to hound corporations just because they have 
the know how to make a success of their venture. So please do 
something constructive instead of distructive in the spending of our 
money.If you want to go after someone go after the people that 
provide the American dream only to those who do not have the gumtion 
to do anything on their own AKA illegals immigrants from the so 
called underpriveliged countrys any ambition they have when they get 
here is soon replaced with every handout the U.S. Govt. can muster 
small business loans food stamps welfare & no limit to the amount of 
children they can have which is no burden to them because you 
provide evrything neccessary Xtras for every child born. I was 
talking to the Sheriff Dept. here about the kids born to most of 
these families and they call it their job SECURITY that s some 
tribute.



MTC-00011119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that this whole law suit was not only unfair and 
unwarranted but also an unnecessary and frivilous waste of taxpayers 
money. I think that was the result of a lot of envy and jealousy 
from bitter underachievers. Bill Gates has done much more in 
compromising and trying to make up for something that wasn t a wrong 
in the first place than most people would do. I think he should be 
praised and commented for what he and his genius have given 
individuals businesses the U.S.A. and the world instead of our 
letting envious bitter petty and little-minded idiots punish him for 
his success and achievements. I guarantee you that if any one of 
them had created what he has they would feel entirely different. The 
whole world owes him gratitude and praise not this stupid 
backstabbing.



MTC-00011120

From: allen.severance@secure aplications.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The whole matter had it s origin in the envy of Microsoft 
competitor s. Microsoft did not do anything illegal. The lame 
justice department then headed up my Janet Reno lacked the forsight 
to see this. Instsead of demonizing Bill Gates we need to admire 
what he did for this country. Microsoft should not only be released 
from any anti-trust suit they should be apologized to. Thank you.



MTC-00011121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get on with it. This legal draging of legal manuvers must 
come to a halt.



MTC-00011122

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is time to put this Microsoft case behind us. It is 
so obvious to me that Microsofts competitors are pushing to keep it 
going. AOL should be put under the microscope . . . . Hummmm. What 
would we find there . . .? If it wernt for Microsoft I wouldn t be 
typing this right now. Microsoft has hepled far more people in the 
learning of computers than any other company. Let s save a little of 
the TAX Payers TAX money and close this case. The Government has 
allready spent far to much on this case. Thank You



MTC-00011123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop punishing success. Microsoft made the desktop 
computer possible. America should honor innovation and customer 
service not cave in ti Microsoft s whining competitors. The proposed 
settlement is fair to all parties concerned including the American 
public.



MTC-00011125

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I personally don t believe Microsoft should ever have been 
brought to judgement I firmly believe that it is time to put this 
behind us. Continued litigation serves no purpose except to line the 
attorneys pockets with more of my hard earned money. I would much 
prefer to use that money buying more software from Microsoft Corp.
    Sincerely
    Dieter Sellers Loyal Microsoft User



MTC-00011126

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THEY ARE CROOKS AND SHOULD BE IN JAIL BUT AS USUAL THE LEGAL 
SYSTEM ONLY WORKS FORTHE BIG GUYS. IT`S NOT FUNNY ANYMORE.BUT YOU 
STILL DON`T GET IT.YOU TOOK A DIVE.THHHATS ALL FOLKS!!



MTC-00011127

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    end the charges against Microsoft.



MTC-00011128

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe STONGLY that no company should blatantly violate our 
nation s anti-trust laws. I believe more strongly it is time to 
resolve the blackhole of uncertainty surrounding the Microsoft case. 
There will NEVER be a settlement or verdict that is without strong 
controversy. America and Americans need your wisdom experience and 
good judgement during this difficult time. We need to remember that 
innovation made and keeps America great. Judge Kotelly this is a 
TOUGH decision for you. But this is a reasonable settlement. 
Americans 


[[Page 25411]]

everywhere will be positively impacted by resolving this 
case as expeditiously as possible. Thank you for reviewing these 
comments. I have included my name and number if you would like to 
contact me. PS FULL DISCLOSURE: I own 176 shares of Microsoft. I 
also own 400 shares of Oracle which is Microsoft s biggest corporate 
detractor.



MTC-00011129

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement is enough. It is time to stop wasting 
time and money on a suit that should probably never have been filed 
at least on the basis it rests and move forward. Let the consumers 
determine what products we want and the market will in the long run 
even itself out.



MTC-00011130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement with Microsoft is in the best 
interest of everyone and good for thr economy
    E.R.



MTC-00011131

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement. Let this be the end of it so Bill 
Gates and Microsoft can move on and get back to business doing what 
they do best.



MTC-00011132

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe Microsoft is being punished for being creative and 
far-seeing so lesser companies can cash in on their expertise. 
Reward Microsoft for being inventive don t punish them.



MTC-00011133

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to let Microsoft arguably one of America s all-time 
greatest engines of enterprise get back to business. Let not our 
government throw any more monkey wrenches into our best companies. 
Let freedom in enterprise ring!



MTC-00011134

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    aaaaaaaa



MTC-00011135

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opion this case has gone on way to long and is starting to 
burden the american tax payer so lets get the gov.out of it and get 
it over in my opion the gov.is bogging this down. Give them their 
settlement and get it over. It s just the thing that might start 
turning the economy around.



MTC-00011136

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I don t believe Microsoft should have been brought to 
trial in the first place I believe the settlement agreement is fair 
and equitable and should be accepted ASAP.



MTC-00011137

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While it is my opinion that the entire basis of the suit was 
without cause the process has brought us all to this point and it is 
from here that we must proceed. It is imperative that the settlement 
be made final and that all parties are made to abide by the terms 
thereof. The use of the court system to stymie one s competitors is 
reprehensible. The production of competitive goods is the proper 
response. I ask that the settlement be enforced and that all 
attempts to subvert the course of this final justice be denied. In 
the vernacular of the day Microsoft s competitors can put up or shut 
up and quit whining like children at a toy store. Thank you.



MTC-00011138

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I may be a user at the end of the entelectual chain but if it 
were not for Micro soft I may not even be connected to the chain . 
Just because someone wants what others have is no reason to take 
that which one has accomplished and give it to he who has not earned 
it. Get on with it! Thank you for all your hard work on this issue.
    Respsctfully
    Rev. Ernest D. Matties thg.



MTC-00011139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice Departments frivolous anti-trust suit and the 
competitors envious vendetta against Microsoft is pro-longed and 
frivolous. Microsoft is an innovative firm that should be commended 
for it s success in research and development and marketing. It is an 
example of American free enterprise all around the world and to 
condemn its achievements only diminishes what America stands for. It 
is the choice of the consumers to buy and use the MS software and 
government should stay out of it s production. Stop wasting taxpayer 
money and spend it on more serious issues in California and the 
nation. The Department of Justice and the California State Attorney 
General should not continue to jeopardize the economy and future of 
technology.



MTC-00011140

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am delighted my government finally behaved in a way 
commensurate with business opportunities and good business sense in 
settling the claim with Microsoft. I feel this giant of a company 
has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt how important they are to the 
well being of America and a prosperous American future. Thank you.



MTC-00011142

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with this settlement arrangement.--Laurene McQuay 
Information Technology Consultant
    GBMC www.gbmc.org



MTC-00011143

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the time been although not yet clearly and/or fully 
satisfied to the masses specially Microsoft competitors the mear 
fact that our legal system team is involved the media exposure 
industry people and those who care to know and have become aware of 
such litigation court preceding and final agreement this primary 
settlement should be carry out. Should Microsoft ever fail to 
maintain its agreement then the Court shall have evry excuse to 
excecute a much tougher ruling and perphaphs the break up of 
Microsoft.
    By the fact that all the attornyes general of all the states 
(The Govertment representatives) have all agreed on this deal and in 
order not to reduce the great technology leadership of Microsoft not 
only in the United States of America but the world their market 
share and exposure its competitors must not only think of themselves 
and their bottom lines (Dollars) but how conjunctevely can create a 
better fairer and more advantegious platform for all to work in and 
therefore continue providing the local and foreign markets with 
their great selection of products while at the same time maintaining 
Microsoft under a microscope so that the big M does not violate 
competetive laws and/or agreements.



MTC-00011144

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the assault on Microsoft and the freedom to 
innovate. To whom it may concern As an employee of Microsoft I can 
ASSURE you that technology is in its INFANCY. This is not the time 
or era to try and legislate innovation. The world and the technology 
industries are many many many years from true infrastructures on 
which to build the future. If we don t give key players 

[[Page 25412]]

like 
Microsoft room to innovate the future will be a long time coming. 
Your behavior and actions affect all companies who desire to serve 
customer demand and enhance our world. Get off Microsoft s back and 
out of legislating the technology industries. Come back in 50 years 
when we have true solid technologies that may require government 
regulation. Now is NOT the time for this. Thank you for listening.



MTC-00011145

From: Mike Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been involved in the computer industry in one way or the 
other for nearly thirty years and would like to comment on the 
proposed DOJ-Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
    The whole purpose of anti-trust laws is to ensure competition 
and innovation so that like natural selection inferior products will 
die out and superior ones will thrive. I have observed with 
disbelief over the past ten years or so how the most inferior 
operating system (OS) that I have ever dealt with as a software 
developer has gained such a market share. When I tell friends that 
on most OS's computers do not ``crash'' or ``lock-up'' they do not 
believe me because they have not been exposed to alternative OS's 
(UNIX, LINUX, etc.) Granted that most of Windows initial success was 
due to its ease of use as opposed to other OS's this is certainly no 
longer the case and I fear that consumers will never get the chance 
to find something better if the proposed settlement is allowed to go 
forward. It is absolutely imperative that Microsoft allow all third 
party developers access to the Windows source code in order to 
create cross-platform alternatives to their software products and to 
allow direct competition with their own software products (Office, 
etc.) Microsoft should also be compelled to continue to support the 
JAVA platform since there is so much JAVA content currently on the 
internet. Failure to do so unfairly denies consumers the use of that 
content and is an attempt by Microsoft to stymie the JAVA juggernaut 
which is in direct opposition and competition to their own .NET 
platform.
    Finally I would like to comment that I feel the only reason this 
settlement proposal came about in the first place was due to 
``economic expedience.'' Following the September 11 attacks I think 
the DOJ felt it in the best short-term interest of the country to 
soften their position and cave in to Microsoft who from all accounts 
had been intransigent in previous settlement negotiations. Opposed 
to popular opinion, the computer industry will not collapse if 
Microsoft justly loses market share to its competitors. Please do 
the right thing and protect the millions of consumers who currently 
have no idea that there is something better out there.
    Michael F. Morris
    Professional Software Developer



MTC-00011146

From: Jaideep Mirchandani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  11:45am
Subject: Case
    Dear Officials,
    I would like to register my deep opposition to the proposed 
settlement. Microsoft is a monopoly by any reasonable standards. The 
settlement does nothing to take away this status from Microsoft.
    Jaideep Mirchandani



MTC-00011147

From: Peter Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  6:40am
Subject: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
    Having read the relevant documents, I am persuaded that the U. 
S. Government has caved in to special interests. This is 
particularly distressing, since it coincided with the recent change 
in federal administration.
    Puteracy is a new medium. America is playing a world wide role 
in defining its parameters. It would be a disgrace if we were to 
stifle competition at this early stage.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to bully the American people, or 
the world.
    Yours truly,
    Peter Hodgson
    [Emeritus Professor]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011148

From: Clive Taylor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clive Taylor
431 Pebblebrook Dr.
El Lago, TX 77586-6012
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Respectfully,

    Clive R. Taylor



MTC-00011149

From: Cecily Wood
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02  12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft's preditory ways
    I wrote earlier protesting the school aspects of the settlement, 
which have now been nixed, thank goodness. However that message was 
based upon public concern. Now, however, my own ox has been gored, 
as it were, and I am speaking as a victim of Microsoft's monopoly. I 
have just been informed that as a ComCast cable user being 
transitioned to @comcast.net from @home (after all the Excite-ment), 
I HAVE to use Microsoft IE (which is not so bad but removes all 
choice) and OE for mail. This makes me madder than I have been in a 
long time. Why should I HAVE to use the most bug ridden major vector 
for viruses as my only access for email?
    I have a Macintosh computer. I made a choice not to be bound by 
Microsoft, and yet now I am being FORCED to use their browser and 
their virus menaced email product. Use of Outlook Express means not 
only that my computer is vulnerable to Mac viruses it was not 
before, but that I can become a Typhoid Mary, infecting other 
machines with PC viruses that won't effect my machine, but which get 
passed along to people I send messages to. I have checked with 
Netscape and they say yes indeed, Microsoft's use in servers by 
ComCast leaves me no option because it is requiring a proprietary 
``handshake'' protocol which is not open source-- for both the 
browser and the mail portions. I can't use Netscape, nor Eudora, nor 
Opera or any other alternative.
    ComCast/AT&T is now one of the largest cable ISPs, so that 
entire large market is being brought under Microsoft's exclusive 
domination, with absolutely NO choice, no matter whether users are 
capable of downloading and installing alternative software--
something vastly easier on a Mac than a Windows machine.
    This is, of course one of the original reasons suit was brought 
against Microsoft. It seems to me that if they were negotiating in 
good faith, this proprietary handshake would have been altered to 
accept internet standards by now. This only further serves to point 
out that they have no intention of altering the business methods 
that made them a monopoly, that the current settlement is a mere 
slap on the wrist, and that they must be monitored extremely closely 
for compliance, once the settlement is set.
    Sincerely, Cecily Wood (cecnralph@home in transition to
    [email protected])
    CC:Cecily Wood,Cecily Wood



MTC-00011150

From: fleur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft security
    We are regularly assured that our internet security is sound, 
but we are equally regularly warned that our pc's are subjected to 
newer threats of invasion from unwanted 


[[Page 25413]]

sources which, we are told, 
are even dangerous. The need for regular assurances of security is 
itself indicative that the opposite might equally be true.
    Is Microsoft scareing us into being its minions. Let's have more 
competitionafter the spirit of true capitalistic principles. Hey?



MTC-00011151

From: David Chancogne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it may concern,
    I share the view of the Senate Judiciary Committee's bipartisan 
leadership that while I would have welcomed a settlement that 
addressed the numerous Sherman Act violations that were found by the 
District Court and upheld unanimously by the DC Circuit Court, the 
DOJ settlement falls far short of that goal. I'm concerned that the 
settlement will do little to change Microsoft's behavior or restore 
competition.
    This is bolstered by the decision of the nine state plaintiffs 
to press on with their case to pursue a far more effective 
resolution. In particular, the proposed final judgment:
    * Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that 
Microsoft was found to have illegally protected;
    * Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community;
    * Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to 
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
    * Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging 
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
    * Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because 
it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
    Sincerely,
    David Chancogne



MTC-00011152

From: nancy hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    January 14, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please continue forth with the proposed Microsoft settlement 
agreement as it is fair to all consumers and properly punishes 
Microsoft for any wrong doing they may have unknowingly caused.
    Sincerely,
    N Hammond
    25959 SE 39th Pl
    Issaquah WA 98029



MTC-00011153

From: John Anger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement which allows Microsoft to pay through the free 
use of its products is not a penalty at all. It is a reward. 
Software does not have a cost like a physical product and the more 
copies that are in use allow Microsoft to continue its monopolistic 
dominance in many many markets. Penalties should be paid with CASH. 
It is the only stick which will get Microsoft's attention. Don't let 
them dupe you into anything else.
    These are my views only and do not represent my employer.
    John Anger
    Alterna Technologies Group
    Suite 200, 5970 Center St. SE
    Calgary, AB T2H-0C1
    Work: +1.403.692.2203
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00011154

From: Glenn Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hello:
    One of the central issues promoted by Microsoft (MS) in this 
case has been to protect their ability to innovate. In my opinion, 
that issue is a carefully constucted red herring. The critical issue 
of importance to our competitive system is protection of ``everyones 
ability to innovate and compete''. ``Everyone'' in this current 
court case includes not only MS, but also their competitors, past, 
present and future. I believe that the issue of protecting everyones 
ability to innovate has been under appreciated, at least in part, 
because the major voices in the trial and associated hearings have 
been MS and their surviving competitors. The past MS competitors 
that have been driven into extinction by the anticompetitive 
behavior of MS are largely unheard from. When they are heard from 
their words obviously carry less weight than they would if they came 
from a source with more business and financial resources. Many of 
the current competitors have to be careful to speak misleadingly 
softly so as to not to aggrevate MS. After all, they often are, to a 
major extent, dependent on ongoing business releations with MS. 
Finally, the ranks of future competitors are, and will continue to 
be, diminished by the awesome and legally-proven ability of MS to 
crush competiton by means both fair and foul.
    I believe that the eventual settlement should focus to a minor 
extent on protecting the ability of MS to innovate. MS obviously has 
the resources to look out for itself, even without its near total 
mopnopoly in desktop operating systems. Instead, the settlement 
should focus on protecting the ability of its competitors to 
innovate, and hence to compete.
    Remember, if the US government hadn't protected the ability of 
MS to innovate and compete through its restraint of IBM, MS would 
certainly not be such a powerful anticompetitive force today. What 
other successful companies and innovative products might there be in 
the information technology world today if MS had been similary 
restrained over the past 15 or so years? Although we can't redo the 
past, we can work to protect innovation for all in the future. What 
ever remedies are instituted to protect innovation, if they depend 
in any respect on the good nature and good will of the ``biggest 
bully on the block'' who has repeatedly broken federal law in 
crushing innovation by competitors, then those remedies are doomed 
to failure.
    If the US refuses to break up MS into 2 or more independent 
pieces, then the eventual remedies should be designed to coming as 
close as possible to such 
an outcome in both law and spirit. Such a settlement would come much 
closer to being self-governing than the current proposed settlement.
    Respectfully, Glenn E Brown
    14 January 2002



MTC-00011155

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hey,
    When Microsoft released J++, I knew that it did not conform to 
the Java standard and would only trick unwary devlopers and managers 
by using Microsoft's extensions. As soon as you start using a 
nonstandard solution, you are completely dependent on that provider. 
As much as Microsoft has added to the whole of computing and that 
addition is generally good, do not allow that addition to become the 
only voice that is heard as a result of its previous success. I 
think that the Microsoft should be broken into seperate business 
units and restrained from engaging in unfair business practices.
    Eric Devlin
    Senior Software Engineer
    KnowX
    404 541 0251
    [email protected]



MTC-00011156

From: Robert E. Timlin, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing as a concerned consumer to comment on, and indeed 
protest the proposed settlement - the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment--between the United States Department of Justice (along 
with the nine states party to the agreement) and Microsoft 
Corporation. Upon review, the terms of the settlement appear wholly 
ineffective. There is a complete lack of punishment for Microsoft's 
illegal conduct, and thus no effective deterrent against similar 
anticompetitive behavior in the future. Also, the agreement takes no 
substantive corrective action to repair the harm done to the 
marketplace by said conduct. The preventative measures spelled out 
in the proposed settlement are also woefully inadequate. 
Specifically, it permits Microsoft to continue to control OEMs 
through a codified system of rewards, provides a glaring loophole to 
allow the company to avoid disclosing Middleware APIs, explicitly 
allows anticompetitive agreements, and perhaps worst of all 
completely fails to address Microsoft's use of its Office product to 
coerce Apple Computer, which the Appellate Court specifically ruled 
was a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Furthermore, the 
Enforcement provisions of the agreement can best be described as 
``toothless'', offering no means to address willful violations by 
Microsoft other than going back to court, and even then the terms 

[[Page 25414]]


significantly handicap the Plaintiff's ability to prosecute said 
violations. Enforcement seems to depend entirely on Microsoft 
dealing in good faith, something which the trial record alone shows 
is a dubious proposition at best. This Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment thus completely fails to provide effective relief by the 
very criteria set forth in Section IV.B of the associated 
Competitive Impact Statement. In short, the settlement serves 
neither justice nor the public interest, leaving consumers 
completely at the mercy of an abusive monopolist. I urge the court 
to reject the agreement out of hand.
    First, let's consider the total lack of punitive and corrective 
measures in the proposed settlement. Under this agreement, Microsoft 
suffers absolutely no consequences for its illegal conduct. There 
are no fines, no compensation to those directly harmed, nothing. The 
few mild restrictions that are placed on them can hardly be 
considered punitive, as most amount to nothing more than 
instructions to obey existing law. And since no steps are taken to 
undo the competitive harm inflicted on the market by Microsoft, the 
settlement thus allows the company to keep the fruits of its 
anticompetitive behavior: a near-monopoly on the Web Browser market. 
Netscape Communications was effectively destroyed by Microsoft's 
actions, and ceased to be competitive in the Browser market once it 
was acquired by AOL-Time Warner. The most recent figures I could 
find (July 2001) show that Internet Explorer holds an 87% market 
share. And Microsoft is even now moving to exploit this dominant 
position, reducing support for open standards in the latest versions 
for Windows, as well as silently disabling competitor's products 
that work with the Browser (e.g. RealPlayer and QuickTime, among 
others). Basically, Microsoft accomplished precisely what they set 
out to do with their illegal conduct, and this agreement does 
nothing to redress that. It is not unlike a bank robber being 
caught, tried, and convicted, then allowed to go free and keep the 
money he stole! The proposed agreement thus fails completely to act 
as any sort of deterrent to future anticompetitive behavior. If 
anything, it even encourages such actions by demonstrating that 
illegal conduct can be used to achieve business goals without fear 
of punishment or reversal. That, in a word, is wrong.
    I submit therefore that the actual penalty that is to be imposed 
on Microsoft should include forced divestiture of the Internet 
Explorer Web Browser, along with a prohibition on purchasing or 
developing anything to replace it. This simultaneously punishes 
Microsoft, denies them the benefits of their anticompetitive 
actions, and levels the playing field for all Browser vendors, 
restoring competition (thus preventing the Internet from becoming 
merely an extension of the Windows monopoly). Divestiture would also 
act as a serious deterrent to future illegal conduct, thus 
addressing some of the gravest shortcomings of the proposed 
settlement.
    Next, I would like to look at some of the key preventative 
measures that the proposed settlement spells out, highlighting 
several glaring flaws that render them ineffectual, or worse. These 
flaws take the form of obvious loopholes, outright omissions, or 
even explicit sanctioning of actions that have the same impact as 
the anticompetitive behavior that the agreement is supposed to stop! 
Consider first Section III.A, which prohibits retaliation against 
OEMs for a number of activities. A good provision, but it is made 
pointless by its final paragraph which permits Microsoft to grant 
Consideration to OEMs based on their level of commitment to 
Microsoft's products or services. Instead of punishing those that do 
not bow to their wishes, the agreement expressly allows the company 
to reward those who do. The net effect is the same.
    Similarly, Section III.B mandates uniform licensing terms, thus 
preventing Microsoft from using discriminatory licensing to enforce 
its will. But III.B.3 completely undermines that by permitting 
discounts, programs, and market development allowances, the only 
requirement being that they be offered uniformly. This merely 
codifies a system of rewards for OEMs who toe the Microsoft line. 
Given the realities of the Personal Computer industry (razor-thin 
margins, falling sales, layoffs), every OEM is therefore highly 
motivated to take advantage of whatever discounts or Considerations 
that are made available. Few, if any, would willingly make the 
choice to incur higher costs by foregoing these benefits to go with 
products from Microsoft's competitors. The same goal is achieved as 
with discriminatory licensing.
    Furthermore, I would like to point out that it simply defies 
common sense to explicitly permit market development allowances for 
an established monopoly. Any product that Microsoft chooses to 
bundle with a Windows Operating System Product automatically has 
access to more than 90% of the market. This is an enormous inherent 
advantage. The only purpose of any market development allowances 
would be to absolutely foreclose the possibility of competition. 
Permitting them in an agreement to settle an antitrust matter is 
absurd in the extreme. Sections III.A and III.B thus start out as 
excellent measures, but the exceptions spelled out render them not 
only ineffective, but actually worse than doing nothing at all. 
Their end result would be Court-sanctioned anticompetitive 
practices. These provisions merely substitute positive reinforcement 
for punishment. It's the difference between giving your dog a 
biscuit and hitting him with a rolled-up newspaper; both methods 
serve to control his behavior. I believe that the Competitive Impact 
Statement's assertion that uniformly offered incentives will not 
discourage OEMs from favoring, promoting, or shipping products from 
Microsoft's competitors is incredibly naive and demonstrates a 
profound lack of understanding of the Personal Computer industry. 
For these two measures to yield effective relief, I submit that the 
final paragraph of Section III.A and all of Section III.B.3 should 
either be removed entirely, or be re-written to expressly forbid 
what they allow in their present form. Further, I suggest that 
Microsoft be compelled to provide versions of Windows Operating 
System Products without bundled Microsoft Middleware. (The Competitive 
Impact Statement does note that this was considered but not pursued, 
but I urge it be re-examined.) These Windows versions would be 
available at a discount commensurate with the subsequent cost for 
OEMs to then include the Middleware of their choosing, be it from 
Microsoft or a third party. There would therefore be no cost penalty 
incurred by OEMs for selecting Non-Microsoft Middleware, and hence 
no built-in rewards for using Microsoft Middleware. The unfair 
advantage of the Windows monopoly would thus be greatly reduced.
    Other provisions of the proposed settlement that cause me 
concern are Sections III.D and III.E, which mandate the disclosure 
of the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware and Communications 
Protocols used by Windows Operating System Products. By themselves, 
these seem like excellent ideas which would give third party 
developers the same access to core features of Windows that 
Microsoft's own programmer's enjoy, thereby further leveling the 
playing field. (The only obvious shortcoming is the 9-12 month time 
frame specified; that is a long time in the Personal Computer 
industry, at least for companies without monopoly power, so for 
maximum efficacy the disclosures should be required to happen much 
sooner.) However, Section III.J.1 provides an inviting loophole to 
circumvent these measures. III.J.1 states that Microsoft is not 
required to disclose APIs, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols if doing so 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.
    On the surface, this seems reasonable. But one need only look at 
Microsoft's antitrust history to see how this represents a blueprint 
for defeating the provisions of Sections III.D and III.E. Microsoft 
blatantly violated the spirit of the last Consent Decree with the 
DOJ by artificially integrating the Internet Explorer Web Browser 
with the Windows Operating System. This act of technical artifice 
exploited a serious loophole in the wording of the Consent Decree, 
rendering it ineffective and meaningless. Microsoft makes no 
apologies for this action and in fact maintains they did nothing 
wrong. Thus there is every reason to believe they would make use of 
such tactics again if afforded the opportunity (particularly given 
how successful they were). Section III.J.1 of the proposed 
settlement gives them that opportunity. By taking essential 
Middleware APIs and key Communications Protocols and artificially 
grafting in even basic anti-piracy, anti-virus, etc. features, 
Microsoft could then refuse to divulge said APIs and Protocols under 
III.J.1, claiming it would compromise security. Third party 
developers would thus continue to be denied critical information 
they need to effectively compete, and Sections III.D and III.E of 
the proposed agreement would be completely circumvented.
    To reiterate, the Section III.J.1 loophole is simply an obvious 
application of the same 

[[Page 25415]]

technique that Microsoft used with great 
success to defeat the previous Consent Decree. III.J.1 seems 
designed specifically to permit such an exploit. While the 
Competitive Impact Statement maintains that III.J.1 cannot be used 
to withhold inherent functionality, there is nothing in the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment itself that would prohibit Microsoft from 
doing so. I submit that in order for the provisions of Sections 
III.D and III.E to be effective, Section III.J.1 should be removed 
entirely, or at minimum extensively modified (for example, including 
the above referenced language from the Competitive Impact Statement) 
to specifically guard against the integration trick. Otherwise, 
history would probably repeat itself.
    Still another problematic provision of the settlement is Section 
III.G.1. Again, it starts out very good, prohibiting Microsoft from 
striking deals with IAPs, ICPs, ISVs, IHVs, or OEMs requiring 
exclusive or fixed-percentage distribution, promotion, use, or 
support of Microsoft Platform Software. But as with so many of the 
other restrictions, an exception is included that permits 
anticompetitive behavior to continue unabated. Microsoft is still 
allowed to make agreements to require use, distribution, etc. of its 
software in a fixed percentage if it is ``commercially practicable'' 
for the IAP, ICP, etc. in question to use, distribute, etc. 
competing software in an equal or greater amount. The Competitive 
Impact Statement does a reasonable job of explaining how this 
limited exception cannot be used to exclusionary ends, but the 
argument breaks down completely if there is more than one competitor 
to Microsoft. For example, in the streaming media market, there are 
three major competing formats: QuickTime, RealPlayer, and Windows 
Media. Consider an extremely popular news Web site (an ICP) that 
might provide content in the QuickTime and RealPlayer formats. Under 
Section III.G.1 Microsoft could make an agreement with this ICP to 
provide content only in Windows Media and QuickTime. The terms of 
III.G.1 would be completely satisfied, as a competitor's product 
would still be used in equal proportion to Microsoft's, and yet such 
a deal is clearly exclusionary, removing RealPlayer from 
competition. As written, Section III.G.1 explicitly allows 
anticompetitive behavior, giving Microsoft the power to decide which 
competitors would be eliminated and which would be permitted to 
survive. Even worse, Microsoft could structure deals with multiple 
IAPs, ICPs, etc. to fragment a market, choosing a different 
competitor to keep at each entity, but keeping its own products in 
universal use, distribution, etc. Network effects would guarantee 
the Microsoft offerings dominance and potentially extinguish all of 
the competitors. Obviously, for Section III.G.1 to have any real 
meaning, the exception must be removed. There are far too many ways 
Microsoft can exploit the permitted agreements to anticompetitive 
ends. A monopoly should not be allowed to use its monopoly profits 
and power to simply buy widespread acceptance of its products or 
services.
    Perhaps the most egregious failing of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment is that it completely ignores a specific violation of 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act as upheld by the Appellate Court: 
Microsoft's use of their Office product as a ``club'' to force Apple 
Computer to adopt Internet Explorer as the preferred Web Browser 
(see Section II.B.4 of the Appellate Court ruling). In fact, given 
the definitions in Section VI of the agreement, not a single 
provision of the entire settlement applies to Microsoft's dealings 
with Apple. Apple Computer is not an IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV, or OEM as 
defined therein. It might be argued that Apple qualifies as an ISV, 
since the company does produce software, but to quote the Appellate 
Court in Section II.B.4 of their ruling, ``Apple is vertically 
integrated: it makes both software (including an operating system, 
Mac OS), and hardware (the Macintosh line of computers).'' The Court 
addressed Apple Computer completely separate from ISVs (as well as 
OEMs and the rest), thus it is reasonable to assume that in the 
Court's eyes Apple is not considered an ISV. Which means this 
proposed settlement leaves Apple Computer wide open to further 
abuses at the hands of Microsoft, especially where the Office 
product is concerned. This alone renders the agreement inadequate, 
without even considering the myriad other problems, as it fails 
completely to ``avoid a recurrence of the violation'' (to quote 
Section IV.B of the Competitive Impact Statement).
    Microsoft Office is essentially a monopoly product in the office 
productivity space. It holds well over 90% market share, and as such 
is an essential software product on both Macintosh and Windows 
platforms. Indeed, it is a critical product for the continued 
survival of Apple's Macintosh line of computers. Even today with 
Apple's improved financial condition, Microsoft could effectively 
kill the company by cancelling Office for Macintosh. Office 
represents a gun pointed at Apple's head, and in fact Microsoft has 
used this threat not just once, but twice. (The first time the 
ultimatum was for Apple to license certain interface elements or 
face cancellation of the Word and Excel software packages, the 
precursors of Office. Apple was forced to agree to terms that paved 
the way for Windows to duplicate many elements of the Macintosh User 
Interface, without Microsoft having to pay royalties.) But even 
though this coercion has now been explicitly ruled to be illegal, 
the proposed settlement ignores that fact and leaves Microsoft free 
to use the tactic again. It would therefore be impossible for the 
Macintosh platform to compete as vigorously as it might against 
Windows because Microsoft can destroy it at will if they decide that 
Apple is becoming too much of a problem. The situation is even worse 
now that Internet Explorer has a virtual lock on the Web Browser 
market, because Microsoft can now threaten to cancel Explorer for 
Macintosh to extract concessions from Apple. The result would be 
nearly the same as with Office: the extermination of the Macintosh 
platform. Explorer is rapidly becoming a knife at Apple's throat to 
go with the Office gun pointed in its face. I submit therefore that 
appropriate relief in this matter is to remove these weapons from 
Microsoft's hands. (If someone commits a crime with a gun, the first 
thing you do is take away the 
gun.) Divestiture of the Office product line would accomplish this, 
but may or may not be practical.
    (As stated previously, I believe that Internet Explorer should 
be divested; this is more feasible considering Microsoft generates 
no revenue from the product, whereas Office produces a large portion 
of the company's income.) In lieu of divestiture, a series of 
restrictions must be placed on Microsoft to ensure they do not abuse 
the Office product. First, they should be required to produce 
competitive and compatible versions of Office for Macintosh as long 
as Apple continues producing computers. The ``competitive and 
compatible'' stipulation is necessary to preclude Microsoft from 
creating deliberately inferior or crippled versions of the product, 
and to ensure interoperability with the Windows version. (This is 
hardly onerous, considering that Office for Macintosh is a 
profitable product; this simply prevents its use as a tool of 
coercion against Apple.) Second, Microsoft should be required to 
commission under reasonable licensing terms a competitive and 
compatible port of the Office product to the Linux Operating System. 
This would remove one of the highest barriers that Microsoft has 
erected to keep Linux from competing with Windows, as lack of a 
native version of Office effectively denies Linux access to vast 
portions of the Personal Computer market. (Again, this does not 
represent a burden to the company, as Microsoft would not have to do 
the work, and stands to reap considerable profits from each copy of 
Office for Linux that would be sold.) Third, similar to the terms of 
Section III.D of the proposed settlement, Microsoft should be 
required to disclose and document all of the APIs used by the Office 
software to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. 
This would help promote competition in the office productivity space 
by leveling the playing field for all developers. Finally, to that 
same end, and perhaps most importantly, Microsoft should be required 
to disclose and document all file formats used by the Office 
software, making them freely available for anyone to use in their 
own products. This alone would go far in removing barriers to 
competition, as file compatibility is one of the primary factors 
which prevents users from exploring alternatives to Office. Even 
without divestiture, these four measures would effectively end the 
use of Office both as a weapon of coercion against Apple and as a 
tool of monopoly maintenance, as well as encouraging competition in 
the office productivity market.
    Next, let's examine the provisions for enforcement in Section 
IV. As with the rest of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, there 
are some good points, but serious flaws and omissions overshadow 
them. Foremost among these are the lack of immediate enforcement 
authority and prescribed penalties for willful violations. If 
Microsoft chooses to engage in anticompetitive conduct prohibited by 
this settlement, the only remedies available are voluntary 
resolution through the Internal Compliance Officer or through court 
action as described in the Competitive Impact Statement. Neither 
offers an effective deterrent to violations.


[[Page 25416]]

    First, consider the nature of the Internal Compliance Officer; 
he or she is to be a Microsoft employee. The factual record of this 
case clearly shows that many of Microsoft's anticompetitive policies 
originated with senior management, among them Bill Gates himself. If 
further such practices were mandated from the top, is it reasonable 
to believe that a simple employee who is afforded no protection 
whatsoever from retribution by this agreement would dare oppose 
them? Furthermore, even if the Compliance Officer chose to make a 
stand against such illegal conduct and was not fired on the spot and 
replaced with someone more pliable, he or she is granted no real 
power to forcibly stop the conduct. The entire idea of voluntary 
resolution through a Compliance Officer seems predicated on the 
notion that Microsoft actually wants to comply and avoid further 
anticompetitive behavior. I believe the record shows this to be a 
naive and dangerous assumption.
    Microsoft willfully and blatantly violated the spirit (if not 
the letter) of the first Consent Decree with the DOJ. The company 
has lied to its developers and customers, coerced competitors, and 
bullied its partners. During the trial in District Court, Microsoft 
repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the proceedings and indeed the 
very notion that the Law has any say whatsoever over its business 
practices. The company was even caught falsifying evidence in 
Federal Court! As the trial went badly, Microsoft turned to public 
relations firms to write fake letters of support in an attempt to 
create the illusion of broad grass-roots backing for the company's 
position, the idea being to manipulate public opinion to influence 
the outcome of the trial. At one point they even stooped to sending 
letters in the names of deceased individuals! And obviously the 
tactic has not been forgotten, for recently it was discovered that 
Microsoft had submitted falsified testimonial letters to the 
European Union commission currently investigating alleged 
anticompetitive abuses by the company. And Microsoft continues to 
misrepresent facts in the matter at hand, failing to disclose 
lobbying activity related to this proposed settlement in its APPA 
filing, when extensive lobbying by the company has been amply 
documented in the media! To this day Microsoft remains unrepentant 
and denies that its actions were wrong, despite the findings that 
were upheld by the Appellate Court. Given this record of dishonesty, 
disregard for the Law, and utter lack of remorse, it seems 
completely unreasonable to now simply trust that Microsoft will 
police itself, or even believe that it in fact has any desire to do 
so.
    That leaves court action brought by the Plaintiffs to address 
willful violations of the settlement. This has proved ineffective in 
the past, as the case of the original Consent Decree between 
Microsoft and the DOJ shows. Even when threatened with the 
unprecedented fine of one million dollars per day, the company was 
not cowed (unsurprising since their monopoly generates billions of 
dollars in profits each quarter). Plus, the company escaped 
punishment for their violation of the Decree completely upon appeal. 
Thus the threat of court action, with its attendant process of 
appeals and likelihood of only fines being imposed even if 
prosecution is successful, does not act as a deterrent against 
willful disregard of the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment. Appeals can drag the enforcement proceedings out long 
enough for anticompetitive acts to achieve their ends, and as 
before, any potential fine is likely to be insignificant compared to 
the sheer size of monopoly profits (not to mention Microsoft's 
staggering cash holdings, which presently amount to roughly $36 
billion and counting).
    What is required to ensure voluntary compliance on Microsoft's 
part is an independent, external authority with the power to 
immediately act to remedy violations, triggering the imposition of 
prescribed penalties severe enough to make the company fear them. 
The Technical Committee as established by Section IV.B of the 
proposed settlement could be such a body, but the agreement fails to 
give it the necessary enforcement powers. The TC is limited to 
working through the Internal Compliance Officer or referring the 
matter to the Plaintiffs to pursue through the courts, both of which 
are likely to be of dubious value, as outlined above. Furthermore, 
Section IV.D.4.d makes even court action difficult by prohibiting 
the TC from either testifying or submitting evidence in any 
enforcement proceedings. This restriction seems wholly unreasonable 
as it only serves to further prevent expeditious enforcement. The 
Competitive Impact Statement notes that the TC can provide 
information to the Plaintiffs upon which to base an enforcement 
investigation, but why mandate such extra steps when the TC can 
directly verify non-compliance for the Court? This makes no sense, 
and would only serve to prolong the duration of any violations. At 
minimum, IV.D.4.d should be removed. (Note that this would not 
compromise confidentiality of materials obtained by the TC, as this 
is specified separately.) Ideally, since time is critical in 
addressing any anticompetitive behavior, the TC should be empowered 
to immediately invoke harsh penalties, either directly or via the 
Plaintiffs, to stop willful non-compliance. These penalties should 
be prescribed in advance and severe enough to nullify and reverse 
any advantage that might be gained by illegal conduct. This might 
include forced divestiture of products, or perhaps forced disclosure 
of the source code for the Windows Operating System. The point being 
that Microsoft would actually fear punishment, and find it in their 
best interests to comply rather than continue their anticompetitive 
ways.
    Lastly, the final major problem with the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment is found in Section V. The specified five-year duration of 
the agreement is far too short for conduct remedies (even the more 
far-reaching ones that I have suggested) to fully restore 
competitive conditions to the marketplace. While the Personal 
Computer industry is rapidly evolving, Microsoft is a thoroughly 
entrenched monopoly, and five years represents at best two major 
upgrade cycles. It is a short enough time that the company can 
simply ``wait it out'' (as they have managed to do thus far during 
the four-year course of these antitrust proceedings) and still 
wield monopoly power when the restrictions expire. I submit that 
the conduct remedies should remain in force for a period of ten 
years. This would allow ample time for competition to flourish and 
make it nearly impossible for Microsoft to simply bide its time 
waiting for the Judgment's expiration. Also, the Plaintiffs should 
be entitled to seek multiple extensions to the term of enforcement 
so long as there is evidence of willful, systematic violations of the 
agreement 
(or associated illegal conduct), rather than the one-time extension 
stipulated in Section V.B. Again, this is to prevent Microsoft from 
simply ``running out the clock'' so it could continue with 
anticompetitive behavior unhindered.
    In conclusion, I believe it to be abundantly clear that the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment would be completely ineffective in 
restraining and redressing Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. 
What good provisions there are have been rendered impotent by 
loopholes and exceptions. This agreement is a failure by the DOJ's 
own criteria as presented in Section IV.B of the Competitive Impact 
Statement: (1) it does not end the unlawful conduct (and in some 
cases officially sanctions alternate forms of it); (2) fails to 
prevent recurrence of violations (especially regarding the coercion 
of Apple Computer); and (3) does absolutely nothing to undo the 
anticompetitive consequences, in particular leaving Microsoft in 
control of the Web Browser market, control obtained through largely 
illegal means (as upheld by the Appellate Court). Furthermore, the 
enforcement provisions are weak at best, completely devoid of 
meaningful penalties for continued anticompetitive acts. Enforcement 
seems to hinge entirely on the good faith of a company that has 
repeatedly demonstrated untrustworthiness. Quite simply, under this 
proposed settlement Microsoft faces no punishment for its past 
crimes and no deterrent to future ones.
    In order to provide effective relief to the marketplace, I urge 
consideration of the suggestions that I have submitted in this 
commentary.
    I believe the additional measures and elimination of exceptions 
and loopholes in the proposed settlement fall well within the scope 
of the Appellate Court's ruling, and would more successfully undo 
the harm inflicted by Microsoft's actions, prevent further 
violations, and restore competition. Even though it is probable that 
additional, lengthy litigation would be required, the time and 
effort to ensure appropriate remedies is more than warranted. A 
quick but ineffective settlement such as the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment accomplishes nothing and leaves one of our most important 
industries trapped beneath the heel of an abusive monopolist.
    For the record, I would like to state that I am not employed in 
the Personal Computer sector and am in no way affiliated with 
Microsoft or any of its competitors. I have no axe to grind. I do 
follow the industry though, as computers have been a hobby of mine 
for nearly 20 years. I work in higher education and manage the 
computer systems for my department. These consist of a variety of 


[[Page 25417]]

platforms including Windows, Macintosh, Linux, and Unix. Based on my 
personal experience, almost without exception I would never 
willingly choose to use any Microsoft product. Yet I am frequently 
forced to, directly or indirectly because of their monopoly power. 
As a consumer I am denied choice. This is the harm that is at the 
core of this case. Now that Microsoft stands convicted of the 
anticompetitive tactics it has employed for so long, there is the 
opportunity to pursue potent remedies to restore competition and 
choice to the marketplace, allowing innovation to flourish. If 
instead the Department of Justice chooses to proceed with this 
completely ineffective settlement, then nothing will change and the 
DOJ will have failed in its duty to the American people.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert E. Timlin, Jr.
    P.S. Please note that I have also faxed a copy of this document. 
This electronic version is provided for your convenience.



MTC-00011157

From: Brian Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Letter 1-14-02.pdf>>
Management Concepts, Inc.
Business Computer Systems--Software Solutions
2229 s. Oneida Street Green Bay, WI 54324-8135 OFFICE: (920) 494-
4949
PO Box 28135 Website: www.mcigb.com FAX: (920) 497-4850
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am concerned about the status of the settlement recently 
agreed to by Microsoft and the Justice Department. Your decision to 
settle the matter is admirable and it is unfortunate that certain 
adversaries of Microsoft are trying to cause problems for it. After 
all, the settlement gives Microsoft's opponents everything they 
could have ever hoped for (and some...) without actually breaking up 
the company. Everyone wins in this scenario.
    Microsoft grew to its great size and magnitude because of the 
seamless operating system it developed and subsequent demand for its 
products. Yes, it grew to be a huge corporation, but if you recall, 
its inception was in a garage. It did nothing illegal to achieve its 
premiere status, as its competitors accuse.
    I am most impressed by Microsoft's agreement to share its code 
for the Windows operating system with competitors. This is profound 
and demonstrates Microsoft's desire to move forward--even though it 
really did not have to disclose these secrets. It will also no 
longer retaliate against computer makers who ship software that 
competes with anything in its Windows operating system--another 
measure that will increase competition.
    The settlement is fair and is a much better alternative to 
breaking Microsoft up. The court should finalize it as soon as 
possible. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Brin Lave
    Brian Jones
    Vice President
    Cc: Representative Mark Green



MTC-00011158

From: Partezana, Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To restore competition, forget about breakups and require 
Microsoft to license its source code for a set fee. And with 
numerous companies selling compatible versions, we might finally see 
a leaner and more stable Windows. Microsoft should be required to 
publish all the ``hooks'' into their OS at launch, patch, upgrade. 
There should be a penalty for each one discovered that have not been 
published. Setup a ``bounty'' system for people to find them. First 
one to find and post to a web site received a percentage of the fine 
for that specific hook.



MTC-00011159

From: Joe Cortale
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/14/02  12:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am a 20 year software executive who has had the opportunity to 
both partner with Microsoft and compete against Microsoft during my 
career. As such, I have spent time in Redmond, WA and gotten to know 
firsthand both the culture, and Machiavellian management philosophy 
that has been a legacy at Microsoft.
    In recent days, I have come to know through an ex-colleague some 
of the details relating to the Proposed Settlement made by the 
Justice Department with Microsoft, and to say the least, I am 
displeased by them. This is why I am writing to you today.
    Your Honor, how could the Justice Department grant Microsoft a 
government-mandated monopoly of the software industry and even 
worse--other technology markets? Clearly, this decision would 
seriously jeopardize all competitors--both now and in the future. 
This decision would clearly violate some basic principals of 
Capitalism, such as our right to choose, our right to fair 
competition, fair pricing, etc.
    In closing, your Honor, I submit to you that like never before 
in our Country's history, Microsoft has unequivocally shown itself 
to be the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. Their illegal conduct and 
activities (bribing & threatening partners and competitors) have 
been proven time and time again. I would like to see Microsoft be 
brought to justice for the good of our country, our economy, and 
most of all--the good of our people. I like millions of other 
Americans are counting on you, and counting on justice to prevail.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Cortale
    Joseph Cortale
    Senior Vice President of Sales
    [email protected]
    Eloquent
    2000 Alameda de Las Pulgas
    Suite 100
    San Mateo CA 94403
    Tel: (650) 294-6474



MTC-00011162

From: John Eriksen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  12:55pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    I originally sent this mail item (below the line) to Richard 
Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connect 
[email protected]>. He mailed me back and suggested 
that I forward you a copy concerning MY concerns about the Microsoft 
settlement. Thanks in advance for your concern and attention. These 
are matters that are very important to all americans and have 
unfortunately gotten pushed from the publics primary attention by 
the events of Sept 11.
    As a concerned american... and a very knowledgeable computer 
professional... Who uses Microsoft products....
    I want to urge you to CONTINUE your efforts to rein in the 
behavior of Microsoft in any way possible.
    It is hard to express in words how disappointed I am with the 
Bush administration and the Dept. of Justice's decision to settle 
this case short of its original goals. I want to further state that 
after having said these things.... that I am a conservative 
republican, who find governmental intrusion into the private sector 
offensive.. but in this particular case, it is not only justified, 
but damned important for the good of this country. Microsoft is not 
ANYONE'S friend. Their goal is become a global corporate entity with 
the same influence and power that an autonomous country has... And 
nothing short of pro-active intervention on the part of 
knowledgeable law enforcement is going to prevent:
    (1) The illegal conduct of Microsoft and similar conduct in the 
future
    (2) To spark competition in the information technology industry
    (3) To deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains Microsoft is 
attempting to control the global network... one information protocol 
at a time. By nothing more intrusive than seemingly benign software 
`upgrades'.. all the while... every other computer platform becomes 
less capable of communicating efficiently across networks DOMINATED 
my Microsoft software...
    This `incompatibility' is not an accident on their part.... This 
is a planned `feature' of their software.. This being software not 
written to do productive work as it primary function, but to ensure 
an ever widening sphere of Microsoft dominated networks. Productive 
work being it's secondary function.
    This `incompatibility by upgrade' must stop. Your efforts must 
continue until Microsoft realizes it is not going to be allowed to 
force its vision of the future on us any more that Osama Bin Ladin 
is.
    You're legal efforts have my total ethical and political 
support.



MTC-00011163

From: Elbert Hannah
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25418]]

Date: 1/14/02  1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In 1992 I was highly recruited by Microsoft to be on their NT 
Beta support team. I was very reluctant and agreed to interview at 
the urging of a close friend who worked there.
    Throughout the interview process, I questioned whether Microsoft 
truly wanted someone like me, since my background was strictly Unix. 
And, I hated DOS, and I hated Windows, and I hated all of their 
products. They assured me they wanted me badly BECAUSE of my Unix 
background... This was during the time when Microsoft touted their 
new NT Operating System as Open and POSIX compliant--i.e., they were 
ready to play the Open Architecture card.
    I accepted their 4th offer...
    On Friday of my first week I attended an internal presentation 
on the NT POSIX subsystem. The project manager, Margaret (I don't 
remember her last name) opened the presentation with the following 
remarks: (and I am summarizing here):
    Margaret: Before we get started here with the POSIX Subsystem, I 
want to make one thing perfectly clear--we have NO interest in this 
subsystem... The POSIX subsystem is just a check box so we can 
qualify to get government contracts. We don't care about it, we 
don't intend to support it, it's just a checkbox.
    Then Margaret introduced the ENTIRE POSIX subsystem team, a guy 
named Matt!
    Afterwards, I called and talked DIRECTLY with Larry Kroger about 
what I had heard. I recounted what I had heard and he made no 
counter argument. I asked him what I was to tell people asking 
questions about the POSIX subsystem on the support forums. Larry 
said, ``Tell them we don't support it.'' I asked what I should tell 
these people about MS' future plans for the POSIX subsystem. Larry 
said, ``Tell them we have none.''
    I resigned the following week--forfeiting ``in the door'' stock 
options that have since exceeded $3M in profit value.
    Thought you'd be interested in MS' behind-closed-door 
``policy''. And, if you have any doubts about the authenticity of my 
experience, check with MS' HR department about my employment at that 
time... Also, the ``presentation'' I described was video-taped, as 
were all of their presentations, so the meeting should be preserved 
in their libraries.
    Elbert Hannah



MTC-00011164

From: Lance Speelmon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/14/02  12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lance Speelmon
543 S Magnolia Ct
Bloomington, IN 47403
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lance Speelmon



MTC-00011165

From: Jane Olson
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/14/02  11:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Olson
2025 Sage Lily Dr
Sidney, MT 59270-5730
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Olson



MTC-00011166

From: George Maynor
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice

Date: 1/14/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Maynor
10201 River Drive
Descanso, Ca 91916
January 14, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. P.S. 
Perhaps your time could be better spent bringing the money changers 
down to their collective knees. Greenspan keeps lowering the 
interest rate to the money changers but real relief to the people in 
the form of lower interest rates on consumer loans is nowhere in 
sight. Don't you think it's about time to help the very people who 
elect you?
    Sincerely,
    George E. Maynor



MTC-00011167

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case against Microsoft I believe their last 
offer was a good one and feel that its the competition of Microsoft 
dragging this settlement on and on. I would like to see the gov. 
step in and make these nine states accept this offer.
    Thank You
    Sam A. Galante



MTC-00011168

From: George Tice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:12am
Subject: Settlement
    I feel that the Microsoft case should be settled NOW. It is good 
for the people and the economy and should be resolved without 
further delay. Thank you
    George E. Tice
    PO Box 2474
    Sedona,AZ 86339



MTC-00011169

From: Ken Smith


[[Page 25419]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand consumers are being encouraged to voice their 
opinion about the DOJ settlement with Microsoft. I believe that it 
is critical for the country to get past this whole mess. The suit 
was driven by Microsoft competitors that have failed to compete on 
price, performance or features. All they have left is litigation. 
It's a sad and disgusting comment on our government that it should 
be fooled by such tactics.
    Microsoft does more for this county in a week then Sun, Oracle 
or AOL do in a year.



MTC-00011170

From: William and Gwen Fisk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in the interest of the American people and the world 
economy to settle the Microsoft antitrust suit.
    Our economy needs for this issue to be put behind us. Our 
country needs the funds to continue the Anti-terrorism fight, not 
litigation costs. Microsoft needs to use their funds to continue 
researching and developing technology, not litigation costs.
    If the other companies could offer the technology Micrsoft has 
developed, you can bet they would have done so. It's sour grapes and 
let's move on.
    Gwen Fisk
    Small business owner



MTC-00011171

From: Karen and Harold Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:18am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT = DISASTER!!
    DEAR JUDGE;
    MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH IN THE HIGH TECH INDUSTRY AND HAVE BEEN 
FOR OVER 10 YEARS. THE CURRENT PFJ IS SIMPLY A DISASTER. IT IS FULL 
OF LOOPHOLES THAT MS HAS ALREADY PROVEN IT IS AN EXPERT AT FINDING 
AND USING AGAINST ANY COMPANY THAT THREATENS ITS MONOPOLY.
    WORKING WITH THEIR SOFTWARE IS AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE--AND NOW 
THEY WANT EVERYONE EVERYWHERE TO BE PART OF .NET. WE DON'T KNOW MUCH 
ABOUT THE EXACT LAW IN THIS AREA--BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO US THAT WHAT 
MS IS DOING IS WRONG. AND CERTAINLY THE PFJ, WHICH I HAVE READ IN 
PARTS, ISN'T GOING TO LIMIT THEIR ABUSIVE TACTICS AT ALL.
    IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO HAVE 
THE POWER TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND GOOD, DO SO. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT 
WILL BE TOUGH TO STAND UP TO MICROSOFT AND THEIR BULLYING TACTICS. 
WE JUST PRAY THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE STRENGTH, THE COURAGE AND THE 
WISDOM TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN THIS VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT 
CASE.
    PRAYING FOR YOU.
    KAREN AND HAROLD WILLIAMS
    BRIGHTON, MASS.



MTC-00011172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:29am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish to state my views in regard to the recent Microsoft 
Settlement. I for one, ( and I believe the majority of the general 
public) , am pleased that the Microsoft case has gone to settlement 
so we can put this behinds us all and move on. Enough taxpayers 
money has been spend on pursuing a company under the assumption that 
the consumers will benefit from government legal intervention, when 
in fact the consumers have only benefited from Microsoft's products 
and innovations.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce A. Campbell



MTC-00011173

From: GEORGE GRANDY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:30am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dearest Judge;
    there are five huge problems I see with the PFJ as it currently 
stands--and I hope that you will use the power of your good office 
to correct these egregious errors before this is made the law of our 
good land:
    1.Communication Protocols: The Agreement states that Microsoft 
must now share information on how its middleware and server software 
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute 
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked. 
This is a huge loophole, because if Microsoft wants to drive a 
competitor out of business, they just attach the specific type of 
software the competitor is involved with to their Windows platform. 
Once they do that, they do not have to share the coding information 
that allows the competitors software to work with Windows, thus 
driving the competitor out of business. Once the competitor is out 
of business, Microsoft can separate the software from the Windows 
package, sell it separately and derive huge margins. In addition, 
Microsoft does not have to disclose their information to companies 
that in ?their view? do not have a ?viable business?. This loophole 
will allow Microsoft to prevent new software start-ups from forming 
which, to say the least, is very bad for competition, and therefore, 
the consumer.
    2. No Penalty For Undisputed Illegal Activity. Microsoft is not 
penalized for any past misdeeds. In other words, they are being 
allowed to retain all the profits gained from their illegal 
activities. Every court involved with this case has acknowledged 
that Microsoft broke the Anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement, 
the Justice Department is sending the message that this sort of 
anticompetitive behavior is acceptable. Every large potential 
monopolistic company is being told that they can get away with this 
sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the gains 
made from such conduct. In other words, get away with as much as you 
can until the Justice Department brings an action. There is every 
incentive for future monopolists to engage in this type of conduct 
and no incentive not to.
    3. Middleware: As part of the Agreement Microsoft is required to 
allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and 
allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware 
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not 
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate 
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into 
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to 
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and 
delete all the competitor's middleware.
    4. The Three-Man Compliance Team. The Agreement requires a 
three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's compliance with the 
Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, the Justice Department 
another, and the third will be chosen by the two people already 
appointed. This new team will not be allowed to inform the public of 
their work, and cannot impose fines. Their sole remedy for 
infractions is informing the Justice Department of the infraction 
and then the Justice Department will have to commence litigation to 
stop the infraction. The Justice Department does not need a 
compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is doing something 
wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke screen.
    5. Market Share. All other businesses in the U.S. market that 
have a ninety percent market share are considered per-se monopolies 
and are regulated or have some sort of government oversight (i.e. 
utilities, local phone companies, cable companies etc.). This is 
done because it is in such a company's best interest (in the 
interest of their shareholders) to abuse their position. In other 
words, to gain maximum shareholder value, they are almost required 
to abuse their position. Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this 
general rule? Does Microsoft not try to gain optimum share value for 
their shareholders?
    Judge: this agreement looks badly flawed--especially to anyone 
that has been in the industry for years and has seen MS again and 
again abuse its monopoly powers. I've been a CEO of a number of 
small software companies--and am one right now. The PFJ will put 
those of us depending on Java in a very precarious position 
strategically.
    Help make this right. Our entire industry is counting on you.
    George Grandy



MTC-00011174

From: todd neighbors
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen and Ladies,
    I feel that Microsoft has made our lives better through the 
innovations they have provided us. I do not understand why some 
lawyers want to tell us what is good for us. The technology has 
already changed and is moving in a different direction as more and 
more people get online. The people that are behind this suit are not 
individual consumers. The people that tend to benefit are the AOL's, 
Sun Micro, Nokia, AT&T of the world. They all have monopolies in 
their own business models. AOl now controls all 

[[Page 25420]]

cable tv. They set 
the price and what's on. AT&T have not only the phone systems but 
also have the platforrm to deliver cable tv and the internet. If you 
look at the cost Microsoft charges for it's product it's cheaper 
than either AT&T or AOL's products on an annual basis. Who's 
providing the better value for the service provided. I don't feel 
that Microsoft has overcharged anybody and it's a disgrace to the 
public for these politicians who are suing the company for the 
betterment of their careers. How come no one sued AOL for the 
monoply that they have over cable tv now that they have Time Warner. 
Look at what they tried to do to Disney a competitor. This is 
another frivolous lawsuit that only benefits the politicians and 
hurts the consumer and technology as a whole. Microsoft does not 
control an individual's ability to create a product for sale in the 
software market.They make it better. Without Windows, the computer 
box makers would have been broke years ago. How come no one has 
looked into the prices that the box makers charged for their 
products. I want Microsoft products because they work.



MTC-00011175

From: Robert Figone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:36am
    Our government should concentrate on protecting our companies 
and industries like other countries in the world do. Trying to 
destroy one of our own companies losses sight of the people that 
make up these companies. Individuals with families, raising their 
children that will become the future leaders, doctors, workers and 
patriots. Our laws should be used to build, not tear down efforts 
that create better conditions in our society. Encourage those who 
are willing to take the risk, make the extra effort to be successful 
not only for themselves but for their many employees as well. Reward 
effort, not whiners who are looking for a free ride or someone else 
to carry their fair load.
    Government should not try to legislate success, only 
opportunity!



MTC-00011176

From: mel graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:38am
Subject: microsoft settlement ruling
108 Fairview Avenue
Elrama, PA 15038-
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft Anti Trust case settlement has been a long time 
coming. I am very glad to see that there is now a light at the end 
of the tunnel. However, I don't see how anyone can even debate the 
settlement's fairness. Microsoft is giving up a great deal to end 
this lawsuit, going so far as to give their competitors an unfair 
edge in the future. Sounds like the ``reverse discrimination'' 
rulings of the past.
    I use Microsoft products both at work and at home. For years 
Microsoft has provided American consumers like me with superior 
products, creating innovative and compatible technologies useful in 
so many areas. Their dedication to making their product user-
friendly created the computer revolution.
    Everyone had the same opportunity to ``jump in'' and profit. AND 
MANY DID!! Now, with the settlement Microsoft has pledged to share 
information, including the internal interfaces for its Windows 
operating system, with its competitors and make it easier for people 
to install non-Microsoft products in Windows. Doesn't sound like a 
just reward for a job well done!!!
    The government has more important matters to deal with. It 
should not be intervening in the affairs of private companies. 
Please uphold the settlement and allow Microsoft to move on with 
their business.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Milford Graham



MTC-00011177

From: Johannes Ziegler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Kollar-Kotally:
    I want to express my dissatisfaction with the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) against Microsoft. As a management consultant to 
leading companies in the high-tech industry, including AOL (formerly 
Netscape), Intuit, and Hewlett-Packard, I have personally witnessed 
the damaging and anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft. In several 
cases Microsoft forced my clients to make product decisions that 
were not in the interest of the consumer, but that were necessary to 
avoid open retaliation by Microsoft-- which is in line with what 
federal courts have found when they reviewed the Microsoft antitrust 
case over the last three years.
    Unfortunately, I cannot see, how the PFJ will change this 
behavior in the future. On the contrary, by not severely penalizing 
Microsoft for past unethical and anticompetitive behavior and not 
really curbing the same behavior in the future, this seems like an 
encouragement for Microsoft to continue with their way of ``business 
as usual''.
    So I urge you not to approve the PFJ but to request a judgement 
that adequately addresses both the past and the future of 
Microsoft's industry-damaging behavior.
    Sincerely
    Dr. Johannes Ziegler
    President and CEO
    Synesis Inc.
    Phone: +1 650 813 9913
    Fax: +1 650 852 9913
    www.synesis.com
    CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov'



MTC-00011178

From: Brian Grave
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:42am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge; the proposed deal with MS is a potential disaster for our 
industry for a bunch of reasons. but the most obvious one is the 
issue of ``bolting.''

    The PFJ does not address the issue that fueled consumer 
criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: 
Microsoft's decision to bind : or "bolt" 
: Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system in order 
to crush its browser competitor Netscape. This settlement gives 
Microsoft "sole discretion" to unilaterally determine 
that other products or services which don't have anything to 
do with operating a computer are nevertheless part of a 
"Windows Operating System product." This creates a new 
exemption from parts of antitrust law for Microsoft and would leave 
Microsoft free in future versions to bolt financial services, cable 
television, or the Internet itself into Windows. This is clearly a 
problem--especially for companies like mine that compete with 
Microsoft (as well as partner).
    I hope you'll help us level the playing field here...it is 
desperately needed.
    Brian Graves
    Boston Mass



MTC-00011179

From: Marcus Grumbles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am happy that the Department of Justice is ready to close its 
case against Microsoft. The three-year suit has affected the 
computer industry and cost consumers a great deal of money. I feel 
that Microsoft, like any other American business, has the right to 
conduct its affairs without government intervention.
    The proposed settlement is more than fair to the plaintiffs in 
the suit and will correct any infractions of which Microsoft may be 
guilty. Microsoft will share its Windows operating system with other 
computer makers, allowing them to place their own software on it. 
Also, Microsoft will agree not to retaliate against companies that 
sell, use, or promote non-Microsoft vendors.
    It is time to allow Microsoft and the rest of the IT industry to 
return to normal. I urge you to see that the proposed settlement 
becomes formal. The lawsuit has already been too costly on the 
industry and needs speedy resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Marcus Grumbles
    6503 Bluesky Way
    Austin, TX 78745 [email protected]



MTC-00011180

From: ken chang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:51am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge;
    My company works extensively with Java--it is in fact our 
lifeblood. what MS has tried to do with Java is beyond belief.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft had unlawfully and 
intentionally 


[[Page 25421]]

deceived Java developers and "polluted" 
the Java standard in order to protect its monopoly and defeat 
competition.
    Yet, the PFJ does not restrict Microsoft's ability to 
modify, alter or refuse to support computer industry standards, 
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of 
rival platforms, middleware or applications software. Indeed, 
Microsoft's decision not to distribute Java technologies with 
Windows XP, which hurts developers and consumers alike, will be the 
shape of things to come under the proposed deal unless the Court 
requires Microsoft to continue to distribute Java technologies.
    YOu must do something to help Java based companies survive. C is 
a 20 year old language that-- if not for the MS monopoly--would have 
died a natural death years ago (remember Cobal??).
    Let competition reign!!
    Dr. Ken Chang
    SF, CA.



MTC-00011181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:55am
Subject: Time to stop the political attack upon Microsoft
    It is long over do to let all this be done with. Most of my 
friends agree this was all done for political reasons. If the former 
US Attorney would have spent as much time on terrorist threats 
against the USA we might not have had the lose of life on 9/11/01. 
What a injustice has been done to all Americans. Stop letting a 
group from playing politics and not be concerned for the true 
welfare of all US citizens.



MTC-00011182

From: Bobbie Dee Flowers
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobbie Dee Flowers
418 West 17th Street, Apt #22A
New York, NY 10011-5826
January 15, 2002
    Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: Dear Microsoft 
Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: The Microsoft trial 
squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a 
serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. Bobbie Dee Flowers



MTC-00011183

From: sergio jimenez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
sergio jimenez
527 2nd steet Brooklyn, ny 11215
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    sergio jimenez



MTC-00011184

From: ROBERT REMINGTON
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  1:05am
Subject: Arthur's Counting Troubles
    The Microsoft Anti-Trust private and educational settlements 
were rejected on the grounds that the amount proposed was far too 
low! Who's counting for the government, Enron or Andersen's group?
    Add a AOL Time Warner settlement recalculated over one year ago 
from their merger (estimated at about $1 billion dollars from Gerald 
Levin's figures) and my claim reaches into the billions of dollars 
without any others factored into the settlement.
    Should we use Arthur Andersen's Accenture Group or another 
respected Big 5 accounting firm in order to calculate the right 
amount? Can we even trust their CEO after the Enron debacle?
    My previous totals, including revenue from Disney, Gary Goldberg 
/ SKG Dreamworks, NBC, Sears, IBM, Microsoft without access to 
television advertising logs for revenue streams and royalty 
calculations is over $1 billion dollars. If the USDOJ gives me legal 
authority and a motivated accounting team, I'll direct the team to 
the proper TV commercial logs, advertising agency orders, computer 
manufacturing records & software license sales. Together we'll 
obtain a more accurate settlement figure, for a lasting peace!
    Include me in on these discussions. Decisions on my future, and 
my money (in the billions of dollars) must be discussed with me, in 
person!
    The sum owed to me is greater that the total 2002 appraised 
value of the NBC Burbank campus and technology! That's why I am not 
disappointed to see a full studio audience at the Tonight Show ahead 
of me! I don't need to be in the studio audience ... I'll be just as 
pleased to own the campus and schedule additional productions at 
unused soundstages within NBC! I can hire additional staff and 
production workers for new shows, employ more Californians who are 
seeking work, and we can all have a great time in entertainment! 
Plus we'll contribute more corporate taxes for General Electric to 
consider, and help the governments as well!
    The USDOJ cannot ignore my email, my legitimate legal rights and 
claims. After all, the IRS and other government agencies will 
receive their fair share of the settlements as well! Enclosed is a 
reminder from the end of 2001, over three weeks ago!



MTC-00011185

From: Julius T. Abadilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Any settlement regarding this dispute will always displease 
someone or some other parties because of the magnitude of the 
situation. It is better to simply go ahead with the agreed upon 
settlement, i.e., give the poorest schools what was originally 
agreed upon, let the recipients benefit from this decision now, and 
move on.
    Because of conflicting ideas in our vast population, there will 
always be some parties who will be 'hurt' no matter what the 
solution would be. When the new presiding judge proclaimed that she 
wants a fast track settlement to this problem, I rejoiced. I felt 
the air of leadership and determination to solve the mess once and 
for all. In a society like ours, we should always work with the 
quickest and best `at that time' solution to out problems, 
otherwise, we will be paralysed with trying to find the 'perfect' 
solution which is almost always elusive. It is better to achieve 
finality now and move on rather than stall the whole process and let 
the whole economy suffer.
    Let us avoid any more losses and missed opportunities due to 
these uncertainties and indecisions. This is the reason we have 
leaders and have appointed well-paid decision-makers so that they 
can come up with solutions within the confines of the law. 

[[Page 25422]]

Let not 
the supposedly leaders challenge each others ruling and stall the 
process all together. Let us move on.
    Thank you,



MTC-00011186

From: Tom Eubank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a customer of Microsoft. I have been a software developer 
for over thirty years and have used Microsoft products for over ten 
years. In my opinion, the Justice Department has been used as a pawn 
of Microsoft's competitors--to win in the courtroom market share 
that they could not win in the marketplace.
    In 1991, I attended a developer's conference, hosted by 
Microsoft's competitors, at which the head of PC Development for 
IBM, and representatives of Borland, Novell, Word Perfect, and 
others, appealed to the attendees to unite against Microsoft. In 
different, but similar venues, Microsoft promoted the benefits of 
their future products--not so much in juxtaposition to the 
competition--but within the context of improvements over their own, 
then-current products. It is this difference vision that has 
enriched Microsoft--along with a significant segment of U.S. economy 
and the lives of many U.S. consumers.
    For almost fifteen years, I worked for a company that actively 
discouraged the use of Microsoft products--primarily due to the 
presence of a Vice President of Microsoft's major competitor on its 
board. During that time, my employer wasted millions of dollars on 
projects that failed in large part due to ill-conceived and faulty 
software technologies and products that were chosen as a result of 
the anti-competitive behavior of Microsoft competitors.
    I have personally encountered multiple products distributed by 
major Microsoft competitors that seemed to be designed to impair the 
reliability or performance of Microsoft Operating System products.
    In summary, over the years, Microsoft has created and published 
a large number of high-quality products for sale to the general 
public, and has slowly increased market share as a result of the 
quality and functionality of those products. During the same period, 
it's competitors have sought to gain market share by stifling 
competition through their influence in the boardrooms of major 
corporations and in the courtrooms of the federal judiciary.
    The COMPLAINT and the STIPULATION seem to be designed to benefit 
other large companies--some of which seek to restrain Microsoft from 
competing with their inferior products and others of which seek to 
further extend their dominant presence in other segments of the 
information marketplace. Articles 1. through 3. of the STIPULATION 
will enable Microsoft's competitors to degrade the user's experience 
of Microsoft products by embedding their products into the operating 
system. Rather than ensuring a competitive marketplace, the 
STIPULATION will impede it by requiring U.S. consumers to use 
inferior products.
    The prosecution of this COMPLAINT has been a waste of U.S. funds 
for the benefit of a few large, under-performing companies; the 
enforcement of the STIPULATION would be a further disservice to the 
U.S. public.
    Regards,
    Thomas H. Eubank
    Durham, North Carolina



MTC-00011187

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank God for Bill Gates and Microsoft. I don't think the 
Government should have interferred in this matter at all. Look at 
where we are as a result of Microsoft Windows. We now can use 
computers easily. What a boost the computer industry has been to the 
economy for the last 10 years and that is all thanks to the ease in 
which the average person can use a computer. If someone can make a 
better operating system, then let them and if its good the public 
will use it; but I don't need the Government running interference on 
this one.
    I can think of many more ways the Government can protect me. Try 
the banking industry and their unreasonable fees for ATM use or the 
oil industry that controls the prices of a commodity that I have to 
use daily! A computer is an option--let the Government interfere and 
take action on the things in my life that are not optional!
    I thought that we lived in a country that embraces capitalism 
and free enterprise and rewards people that are innovative--I guess 
not in the case of Bill Gates!



MTC-00011189

From: R. Douglas Barbieri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft was a paltry settlement which is a 
mockery of the antitrust act. You wasted millions of taxpayer 
dollars to basically accuse Microsoft of being a monopoly then give 
them a slap on the wrist. Having Microsoft donate computers pre-
loaded with Windows to schools only give them an edge in a largely 
Mac-dominated arena. What should be required of Microsoft is that 
all of their operating system source code should be required to be 
turned into open-source under the GPL license, and that said source 
code, complete with internal comments and documentation, be released 
to the general public.
    They should then be required to keep said source code up-to-date 
and published. They should also be forced to adhere to open 
standards for data formats instead of being allowed to create their 
own, closed source versions. Those data formats (Windows Media, 
Microsoft Word, etc) help them maintain their monopoly on the world. 
By requiring them to play with open standards, we are guaranteed to 
be able to view their data formats on any system using non-Microsoft 
software.
    R. Doulas Barbieri
    dougbarbier



MTC-00011190

From: [email protected]@inetgw


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: DOJ
    I believe the settlement proposed by the court is fair and want 
this case settled. I disagree with the nine state Attorneys General 
who want to continue this case should be denied the forum to do so. 
Please settle this case.
    Charles Dorsten
    936 Burlington Drive
    Santa Maria, CA 93455



MTC-00011191

From: Gerard Verbrugge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US goverment,
    I look at this issue with a european background and personal 
view. I must say that the press and the competitors created a nice 
show of this trial but forgot all about what it is about. I myself 
am a happy user of Microsoft products and never felt the need to 
complain about anything, I do not feel that I pay too much or must 
use something that I do not want. There are many ways of competing, 
this competing through justice by the so called big companies is 
clearly a negative side of the industry.. Also big time lawyers that 
try to make a small win in this case (DOJ side) is pethatic.
    I say Free Microsoft of all its charges and tell the competitors 
to get of their lazy butts and create products that compete instead 
of crying....
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Verbrugge,
    the Netherlands



MTC-00011192

From: Walter Paul Bebirian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:51am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Since this and most other ``antitrust'' cases are compared to 
Standard Oil--I would recommend that the Standard Oil case be looked 
at from the perspective of what was done and just how we as a 
country are fairing because of that break-up--It seems that no one-- 
not one of the states or the government is taking into consideration 
that since the beginning of this ``case'' that the economy is the 
real injured party every step of the way and because this is so, 
every citizen in this country is being negatively effected--My 
suggestion is that every single person whether they are in or out of 
Microsoft--does not really appreciate the negative effect of this 
``action against'' Microsoft--For one brief second--let us imagine 
that there is no Microsoft and that there never was one--how much 
progress along any lines whether with computers--handhelds--or 
Internet-- would we have made--and if you think that Netscape is 
innocent--I propose that the investigation truns right around and 
looks very deeply at the fact that Netscape was not only behind this 
whole case--but that Hearst Publications--a most powerful and 
controlling Private Business--has been behind Netscape from the 
beginning--So--let us take a quantum leap and figure that 20 

[[Page 25423]]

years 
down the road--Microsoft is diminished to a small player in both the 
operating system category and the browser category-- so what--how 
will that have benefited me--I use a Power Mac which runs on an 
Apple OS 9 system-- (nothing to do with Microsoft) but let me tell 
you one thing--there is no comparison between the Netscape and 
Explorer Browsers--the Netscape is no where near as good--
efficient--easy to use or fast as the Explorer--so let's be 
truthful--cut out all the double talk and admit that Microsoft is 
where it is at because it belongs there--and so I don't agree with 
the Mocrosoft Company having to pay any penalty or to be judged 
against because it is the thruth that there has been no 
investigation as to exactly why any on has complained about 
Microsoft and done anything but made a better OS--and if they 
haven't it is most probably the case because given the hardware they 
have to work with--they can't--so from that perspective-- let's all 
sit down--make a better machine and then figure out how to make a 
better OS from the beginning of the next generation--
    And my dear Department of Justice--friends--if you don't think 
that I know what I am talking about-- that's just fine with me--
since anyone who really has the capabilty of designing what I 
mentioned above will always be a thousand steps ahead of your 
thinking!
    Walter Paul Bebirian
    http://www.575488trillion.com



MTC-00011193

From: Jacob Dobrinen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Letter
911 N. 107th Street
Seattle, WA 98133-8804
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. Litigation has gone on 
for far too long now, and I think the terms of the settlement are 
fair and in the best interest of the public and American economy.
    A number of the terms of settlement will help give consumer's 
freedom to choose products. Microsoft had agreed to design future 
Windows versions so that computer makers, software developers, and 
consumers can more easily promote their own products from within 
Windows' operating systems. Also, I like the fact that Microsoft has 
agreed to form a three-person team to monitor compliance with the 
settlement. I think the settlement is fair and reasonable and should 
suit all parties.
    Unfortunately, there are nine states in opposition. I urge your 
office to make the settlement a reality. Our country needs American 
companies such as Microsoft to be focusing on innovation, 
development, implementation and growth. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jacob Dobrinen



MTC-00011194

From: Blomberg David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge
    I am relieved that the proposed settlement was thrown out. 
Please do us all a favor and sned a message that the Antitrust and 
unethical activites of Microsoft will not be tolerated. I ask that 
this case continue and that Microsoft be made to pay for its crimes.
    I will keep this short
    Thank You for hearing me out
    David Blomberg
    System Engineer
    Nihon Libertec Co. LTD
    1-34-14 Hatagaya
    Shibuya-ku Tokyo
    Ph: (03)3481-8321
    Fax:(03)3481-8371



MTC-00011195

From: wolfgang manowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:08am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle the microsoft anti-trusst suit. DOJ's 
proposal is just and in the interest of the electronics consumer. 
Lets settle so we all can get on with our lives.
    Regards,
    Wolfgang Manowski
    25 Southridge Way
    Daly City, CA 94014
    4153335610
    wolfm3



MTC-00011196

From: debby hein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please begin 2002 with a reasonable settlement of this case to 
benefit all parties concerned...particularly our economy. It's time 
to move forward and build a healthy economy through healthy 
corporate relationships.
    Thank you,
    Debby Hein



MTC-00011197

From: tntvideo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People of the United States of America:
    I felt that the word UNITED be part of what is NOW needed. 
Enough is enough, can't the states of this country come to the 
realization that with the economy in such bad shape that it is today 
we need unity! We also need a company such as the likes of Microsoft 
to be left alone! It will be a sure bet that the technology sectors 
will recover with this company leading the way!
    Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has no data and no real answers to 
help this country to a new economic recovery! The proof has been 
that he has lowered rates last year 11 times and we still have heard 
of companies like Ford now getting ready to close down factories to 
which another 35,000 jobs will be 
lost. These people that have and will lose there jobs have know 
class action law suits! Most don't even know what one really is, be 
it known that when given the choice to sign up to sue a company 
because it's for the good of the people, ??? this I question and 
deny my ever putting my name on the dotted line! The lawyer's will 
make all the money even if they win!
    Stand up for what's right, but exactly what has been right in 
the antitrust case is that Microsoft has surely taken a beating for 
the most part but unjustly and certainly unfairly by a very bad if 
not the worst Judge in History to proclaim that Microsoft is a 
monopoly! Truly Microsoft has been one of best and greatest 
companies in true innovation of the last century! It has made 
HISTORY as being a giant in an industry started by others like IBM.
    United States of America, we are at war now but with terrorist's 
for Sept 11, 2001 also has now made HISTORY! We can no longer sit 
back in this country and fight within ourselves as Microsoft is not 
the enemy!
    I am proud of this country and for which we stand, but right now 
I'm sorry to say that the time to come together so that this country 
and our people, many who do not wish to lose there jobs and their 
sense of self respect need to see a heeling process begin again to 
this great nation!
    At this time, I implore the states that have not settled in the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust Case to please do so and forget about the term 
CLASS ACTION in the legal sense. Just to use some ACTION with CLASS 
and settle so we as a Nation can count on YOU so we can Take care of 
business where it needs to really be taken care of. Please help our 
great country and leaders to do their jobs in regards to creating an 
economic growth for the good of ALL the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES 
OF AMERICA.
    Terrence V. Lipinski



MTC-00011198

From: Mauro Gandini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with Microsoft
    Mauro Gandini
    The Outsourcing Company
    Marketing e Comunicazione
    Via S.A. Sauli, 19
    20127 Milano ITALY



MTC-00011199

From: The Flanegans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge,
    Please reconsider the Microsoft Settlement. As a household that 
relies on incomes from small software companies and the 
competitiveness they create, we cannot afford to have the monopoly 
that is Microsoft drive this away.
    Please reconsider.
    Sincerely,
    Christina Flanegan



MTC-00011200

From: Dan Flanegan / 4alarm films
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25424]]

Date: 1/15/02  3:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    As someone with over six years experience in high tech, I can 
tell you I have experienced the strong arm tactics of Microsoft more 
than once.
    Unfortunately, the proposed settlement would not stop Microsoft 
from taking these same tactics in the future.
    I ask you to judge the facts and not act simply to put this 
behind us. Do the right thing!
    Sincerely,
    /Dan Flanegan
    Producer / Director
    4alarmfilms



MTC-00011201

From: Richard Storey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Attorney General, et al:
    I conceive the actions by the DOJ, under the Bush 
administration, to be a failure regarding the handling of the 
Microsoft case. Failure to break up this mega-corporation will 
continue the oppressive effects Microsoft has upon the software 
market and the PC industry. This may sound harsh, especially coming 
from a conservative such as myself. However, I am knowledgeable 
about software and PCs. Knowledgeable enough to know that DOJ took a 
weak case against MS, because they are guilty of much, much worse 
than they were found to be. It is evident to me, from the statements 
from the lawyers in the case, that DOJ is almost without a clue when 
it comes to PC operating systems and without a clue in assessing 
what impact MS's coercive tactics have had in the PC industry, as 
well as the software industry.
    Microsoft is a mega-corporation that puts out grossly under-
engineered products. They are, in many ways, dangerous to the PC 
industry, the consumer, and business. But the overwhelming majority 
of the users out there don't have a clue about this. Ignorance is 
their bliss. MS's strong-arm tactics, and anti-competitive monopoly 
has grossly distorted and brought to ruin much of the competition in 
the software industry. MS should be broken-up and anything short of 
that is merely a slap on the hand of a serious offender against 
freely competitive markets.
    Some of us know, are aware of, why MS has risen to its place in 
the market. Sure, the right people, at the right time made it so, 
partly, but if it were not for IBM's size in the market and their 
stupidity MS would not have been successful at dominating the entire 
market. Also, since it was government contracts that, basically, 
allowed IBM to achieve its status in the market we have series of 
events made possible by government interference in the market. This 
is why it is a lie to say that MS is what it is because it is 
innovative (everyone knows it is not).
    Get on with doing the right thing--pursue the break-up of 
Microsoft and do it soon. It will change everything in the computer 
and software markets for the better, and besides, considering their 
practices of coercion with their vendors and the PC OEMs they 
deserve it.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Storey
    President
    Primera Financial Group, LLC
    22 West Bryan St., Ste. 234
    Savannah, GA 31401
    (912) 659-6256
    (877) 639-1282 Fax



MTC-00011202

From: Claudio Vacalebre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just to remind you (I already wrote some week ago) my 
disappointment on this story. I'm writing you mainly as a consumer, 
although I'm the CEO and CIO of a very small Internet company.
    I'll try to list my perceptions and opinions (my english is very 
poor, so please excuse me for language mistakes).
    1) This case wasted millions of $$, please stop this case and 
please focus on REAL ISSUES, the people that worked, during the past 
years on such case, could be used with more proficiency on more 
important cases.
    2) Me and other people wasted our time trying to learn about 
this ``vapor-lex'' case, the time spent can be considered more 
millions $$ wasted, please STOP wasting our time!
    2a) If I was an American citizen I could add : Please STOP 
wasting our money!
    3) Microsoft always worked, as a company, with a very clear 
goal: facilitate the ``digital-life'' of us and the results are 
evident when you compare single pieces of technologies against MS 
competitors.
    4) The quality of the code provided, during the past 25 years, 
was always improved as the main example of the honest commitment of 
the company
    5) You are condamning a company that started from scratch and 
that was able to became the reference for all the world, with your 
actions you are convincing entrepeneurs to ``stay small'', that 
should be better for you but not for the global economy because in 
this way no evolution can happen.
    My list is very long but I do not want to continue wasting my 
time on such ridicolous story. Just try to consider that this case 
is not a game or a way to spend your time but try to use your time 
to end it.
    Best Regards and thanks in advance for doing nothing and wasting 
and confusing us.
    Dr.claudio\/
    CEO & CIO
    dotMMS srl
    Email: [email protected]
    Messenger: [email protected]
    Sito ufficiale: www.dotmms.it
    Portale dimostrativo servizi di Streaming: http://dotmms.tv
    Sito Personale: http://claudio.tv



MTC-00011203

From: Karl Auerbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am presently the North American Elected Director on the Board 
of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers (ICANN).
    I am a member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). I 
was recently named a Yuen Fellow of Law and Technology at the 
California Institute of Technology (CalTech) and Loyola Law of Los 
Angeles. I have started several companies over the years and have 
been closely associated with several other startups.
    I have been a developer of software since the late 1960s and 
have been working on the Internet since its inception in the early 
1970's. I have experienced first hand the damage that Microsoft has 
caused to the software industry and to the Internet.
    One startup with which I was associated was very definitely 
``Microshafted'' when Microsoft used its operating system monopoly 
to subsidise and to give away, without visible charge to the 
customer, a product that directly competed with our products. Later, 
when we tried to modify our products to be compatable with those 
from Microsoft, I heard (secondhand) that Microsoft played a shell 
game with enabling keys to their modules, thus forcing us to dance 
to their tune.
    It is my belief that the proposed settlement will do nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing to wreck havoc. As a Director of 
ICANN I am responsible to protect the ``stability'' of the Internet. 
Yet I see a great threat to the future of universal and impartial 
interconnectivity of the Internet arising out of Microsoft's 
leveraging of its dominance of user platforms to starve out any non-
Microsoft technologies or implementations.
    The proposed settlement is inadequate. It does nothing to 
redress the harm that Microsoft has caused. And it institutionalizes 
those abusive and predatory practices so that they will be 
repeatedly visited upon us and our children in the years to come.
    The proposed settlement should be rejected in favor of a 
settlement that truely will remedy the past damages and prevent 
their recurrence in the future.
    --karl--
    Karl Auerbach
    North American Elected Director, Board of Directors
    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
    (ICANN)



MTC-00011204

From: Joseph Kane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:33am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As an ordinary citizen and member of the military I've sworn to 
uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. I'm disgusted and appalled by 
the continued harrassment of Microsoft and its shareholders by the 
United States Government.
    Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that there 
is no such thing as a monolpoly in a free market. To penalize the 
creative and successful is barbaric, un-American and comparable to 
an act of terror.
    If liberty and justice are to prevail the US Government must 
immediately dismiss all anti-trust charges against Microsoft and any 
other corporation or individual.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Kane


[[Page 25425]]



MTC-00011205

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Justices,
    It seems to me the most significant factor regarding the 
decision to break up or apply punitive measures to Microsoft is 
being completely ignored. This key factor was and still is 
'interoperability', which is the ability of computers running 
different operating systems to exchange files, data, and otherwise 
communicate freely. Microsoft manipulated features and issues that 
exploited or limited interoperability in order to squelch 
competition.
    Furthermore, the proposed settlement offers no resolution of 
this core problem. There's little in the way of laws in place that 
protects a consumer's rights to interoperability in an OS (Operating 
System) or NOS (Network Operating System). Just as the development 
of automobiles necessitated speed limits and standardized safety 
equipment (turn signals, seatbelts, etc.), America need laws to 
protect consumers from a single company controlling or 
overmanipulating the evolution of such essential elements in its 
network and computing environments.
    Recommendation: Penalty and/or restitution be added or replace 
self-monitoring agent; such that Microsoft be required to take a 
principal role (via it's proven legal and technical expertise) in 
enacting new laws that protect consumers' rights to an open OS 
environment, while providing guidelines for product development that 
complies with an open standard for OS and NOS interoperability. This 
role may be manifested by the development of a standards 
organization, or by a joint committee with congress to enact such 
laws.
    Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher F. Harrison



MTC-00011207

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:29am
Subject: Microsoft remedy suggestion
    No more OEM Software!! Have the consumer buy the OS and install 
it or have your friendly neighbourhood installer do it. That way, if 
there is a software problem with MS software, they have to field it 
and not the OEMs.
    The OEM hardware will be according to PUBLISHED compatible 
specs, so MS can't weasel out and put the blame on hardware! MS has 
to publish file specs, so competing office products are on the same 
playing field.
    Unbundle all non OS software from Windows and provide links to 
ALL relevant additions. Legislate software ``Lemon Law'' and make 
the producer responsible for damages.
    Regards
    Wolfgang Schneider



MTC-00011209

From: sonofgomez709
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From: ``Microsoft''
Subject: FINFlash Update: Time running out for DOJ comments
To: [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:26:12-0800
    While Microsoft commends these public officials for involving 
citizens in a decision that will affect them so profoundly, your 
voice is more important now than ever before to ensure that the DoJ 
hears the full spectrum of opinion on this matter.
    Gee, when Micro$not got an email containing what Eric Cordian 
described as ``the best defense of Microsoft's anti-trust position 
that I've seen,'' they had me charged with a felony and had their 
employees perjure themselves and hide evidence in order to have me 
convicted and imprisoned.
    I would suggest that anyone sending any emails to Mico$not 
consider the fact that it may result in their PerseProsExecution by 
a CorporRapeTion and a GovernMint with bottomless pockets.
    Besides, Micro$not's high-priced lawyers already proved their 
inability to do anything more than piss away BadBillyG's money while 
waiting for HisDigiHoliness' new found Respect for throwing large 
amounts of money into the Corrupt Lobby System to take effect.
    All anyone will do by providing Micro$not with public support is 
open themselves up to Micro$not's legal wrath and unconstitutional 
persecution while lowering the cost of Micro$not's political bribes.
    People wshould be particularly careful in light of the impending 
legislation doubling the sentences for computer crimes committed by 
people using the Linux Operating System. (Hey! You don't think I'd 
just make that up, do you?)
    CJ Parker [email protected]>
    http://profiles.yahoo.com/sonofgomez709
    http://members.w-link.net/sog/INDEX.HTM
    http://toto.diary-x.com



MTC-00011210

From: Schlep Rock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am voicing my displeasure and loathing toward the Proposed 
Final Judgment. Microsoft, as we all know, continues to commit acts 
of misdeeds. The Proposed Final Judgment doesnt help the situation 
any better. In fact, the final settlement only worsens the existing 
situation. For all intents and purpose, the PFJ does not deny 
Microsoft its past violations and illegal acts. As one can see, 
every court, which has been involved with the case, has found 
Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the 
proposed final settlement, Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be 
permitted to retain most if not all profits gained through their 
illicit activities.
    Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or 
harmed through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ 
will not take into account all Microsoft gains 
made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, the 
final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of 
Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does this 
send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is clear 
and simple. The Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations 
to engage in monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is 
detrimental to the technology industry at large.
    With all due respect your honor, I am outraged at such a 
preposterous proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain intact and 
continue with its unethical practices. I submit to you my objection 
to this Proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Bill Utlak
    Palos Verdes, CA



MTC-00011211

From: Ailei Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    With all due respect, I abhorrently object to the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the Microsoft case. There are several apparent flaws 
with in the final proposal which will undoubtedly give Microsoft 
absolute power to abuse their existing monopoly position. Based on 
further review of the proposed settlement, there is one glaring 
oversight that cannot be overlooked. One such noticeable defect 
entails an ineffective and inept enforcement mechanism to implement 
so-called restrictions. As stated in the settlement, Microsoft will 
be closely monitored to comply with all restrictions encompassed 
with in the stated agreement. A three man compliance team will 
oversee and insure that Microsoft comply with the stated rules and 
regulations. Taking a closer look however, this three-man oversight 
team will be composed of the following: one appointee from the 
Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another 
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft 
will control half of the oversight team.
    Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement proceeding, all 
findings by the oversight committee will not be allowed into court. 
The sole purpose of the committee is to inform the Justice 
Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently the Justice 
Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter and 
commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said and 
done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will not 
strictly oversee Microsofts business moves. In my opinion, the 
Proposed Final Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate 
restrictions or penalties against Microsoft.
    What reassurance do we have against Microsofts illegal and 
illicit activities? I can assure you that the Proposed Final 
Judgment does not effectively nor sufficiently address the question. 
Therefore I submit to the court my objection to the Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Ailei Jimenez
    San Mateo, CA


[[Page 25426]]



MTC-00011212

From: Erlin Jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am giving my personal objection to the so-called Proposed 
Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case. As history will 
prove, Microsoft continues to violate business practices. The 
Proposed Final Judgment in a sense, does not deny Microsoft its past 
violations and illegal acts. As one can see, every court, which has 
been involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of breaking 
the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed final settlement, 
Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if 
not all profits gained through their illicit activities. 
Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed 
through Microsofts egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will not 
take into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal 
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is 
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsofts anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the 
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The 
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in 
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to 
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I 
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps 
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical 
practices. Thus, I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Sincerely
    Erlin Ortiz
    Lodi, CA



MTC-00011213

From: Ernesto Funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am submitting to you my personal objection to the Proposed 
Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case. As history will 
prove, Microsoft continues to violate business practices. The 
Proposed Final Judgment in a sense, does not deny Microsoft its past 
violations and illegal acts. As one can see, every court, which has 
been involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of breaking 
the anti-trust laws. However, under the proposed final settlement, 
Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if 
not all profits gained through their illicit activities. 
Subsequently, the PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed 
through Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will 
not take into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal 
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is 
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the 
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The 
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in 
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to 
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I 
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps 
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical 
practices. I submit to you my objection to this Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Ernesto Funa
    Stockton, CA



MTC-00011214

From: Eliza Funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am against the proposed final judgment. Over the past several 
years, the Court has found Microsoft guilty of all misdeeds. 
Nevertheless, the Proposed Final Judgment dismisses all previous 
court findings indicting Microsoft. The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in my 
opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also to 
the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly 
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing 
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. 
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the 
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up 
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current 
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business 
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most 
monopolies in the past are either broken up or carefully regulated. 
Unfortunately, Microsoft is given a pardon to this general rule of 
thumb. Also, admonishing Microsoft will not radically alter 
Microsoft's existing operation methodologies. With out a doubt, 
Microsoft will continue to abuse its monopoly position at the 
expense of others. Unless the court breaks up Microsoft into several 
parts, Microsoft will continue on with its illegal practices. In 
conclusion, I object the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Liz Ageri
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00011215

From: Ricky G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I object to the so-called proposed final judgment in the 
Microsoft case. In all past findings, the Court has found Microsoft 
guilty of violating the Anti-Trust laws. Yet the PFJ or the proposed 
final judgment throws out all previous court findings that indicts 
Microsoft. In other words, the proposed final settlement allows 
Microsoft to continue on with its predatory practices, which in my 
opinion is a detriment to the technology industry. I am certain you 
will receive thousands appeals entailing various flaws apparent in 
the proposed final settlement. However, my main focus involves 
one glaring flaw in the proposed settlement: The PFJ does not 
effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to 
leverage its Monopoly to expand its business into several other 
technology sectors. In the past most monopolies, such as AT&T, are 
either broken up or carefully regulated. However in this case, 
Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general rule of 
thumb. In addition, a simple slap on the wrist by the Department of 
Justice will not suffice in drastically altering Microsoft's 
existing operation methodologies. As history has shown, Microsoft 
will unfortunately abuse its monopoly position at the expense of 
others. Unless something extraordinary is done, Microsoft will 
continue to implement illegal business practices. Thus, I submit to 
the Court that the Proposed Final Judgment does not solve the 
problems involved in the Microsoft case.
    All the Best,
    Ricky Gamboa
    Foster City, CA



MTC-00011216

From: Anne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
911 N. 107th Street
Seattle, WA 98133-8804
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in full support of the recent settlement between 
the U.S. Department of Justice and Microsoft. Litigation has gone on 
for far too long now, and I think the terms of the settlement are 
fair and in the best interest of the public and American economy. A 
number of the terms of settlement will help give consumer's freedom 
to choose products. Microsoft had agreed to design future Windows 
versions so that computer makers, software developers, and consumers 
can more easily promote their own products from within Windows' 
operating systems. Also, I like the fact that Microsoft has agreed 
to form a three-person team to monitor compliance with the 
settlement. I think the settlement is fair and reasonable and should 
suit all parties. Unfortunately, there are nine states in 
opposition. I urge your office to make the settlement a reality. Our 
country needs American companies such as Microsoft to be focusing on 
innovation, development, implementation and growth. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    Anne Argue Dobrinen



MTC-00011217

From: Rich Gamboa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Your honor, I object to the Proposed Final Judgment entailed in 
the Microsoft case. After reading and analyzing the proposed 
settlement, I am appalled that Microsoft can 

[[Page 25427]]

get away with such 
murder. Obviously here are several apparent flaws with in the 
proposal which will undoubtedly give Microsoft absolute power to 
abuse their existing power. Based on further review of the proposed 
settlement, there is one glaring oversight that cannot be 
overlooked. One such noticeable defect entails an ineffective and 
inept enforcement mechanism to implement so-called restrictions. As 
stated in the settlement, Microsoft will be closely monitored to 
comply with all restrictions encompassed with in the stated 
agreement. A three man compliance team will oversee and insure that 
Microsoft comply with the stated rules and regulations. Taking a 
closer look however, this three-man oversight team will be composed 
of the following: one appointee from the Justice Department, one 
appointee from Microsoft, and another appointee chosen by the two 
existing members. In turn, Microsoft will control half of the 
oversight team. Also, in the likelihood of any enforcement 
proceeding, all findings by the oversight committee will not be 
allowed into court. The sole purpose of the committee is to inform 
the Justice Department of all infractions by Microsoft. Subsequently 
the Justice Depart will launch its own investigation into the matter 
and commence litigation to halt all infractions. When all is said 
and done, the oversight committee is just window dressing, who will 
not strictly oversee Microsoft's business moves. In my opinion, the 
Proposed Final Judgment does not provide sufficient and appropriate 
restrictions or penalties against Microsoft. What reassurance do we 
have against Microsoft's illegal and illicit activities? I can 
assure you that the Proposed Final Judgment does not effectively nor 
sufficiently address the question. With all due respect, I submit to 
the court my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Kind Regards,
    Richard Flores
    Santa Barbara, CA



MTC-00011218

From: Di M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Over the past several years, we have witnessed first hand the 
predatory methods Microsoft uses to squash its competitors. 
Therefore, I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final 
judgment on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found 
Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics 
and practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the 
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court 
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft 
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in 
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also 
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly 
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing 
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. 
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the 
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up 
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current 
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business 
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most 
monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard Oil, are either 
broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft is given a 
pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb altogether. Also, 
simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by the Department of 
Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's existing operation 
methodologies. As history has proven over and over again, Microsoft 
will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position at the expense of 
others. Unless something extraordinary is done such as breaking up 
Microsoft's business into several parts or meting out severe 
punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement 
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed 
Final Judgment does not solve anything but exacerbates the existing 
problem with Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Diana Mah
    Lodi, CA



MTC-00011219

From: J J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am objecting to the Proposed Final Judgment. Microsoft 
continues to break anti-trust laws and discards proper business 
ethics. The Proposed Final Judgment does not punish Microsoft for 
it's past violations or illegal acts. Every court, which has been 
involved with the case, has found Microsoft guilty of misdeeds. 
However, under the proposed final settlement, Microsoft, 
surprisingly enough, will be permitted to retain most if not all 
profits gained through their illicit activities. Subsequently, the 
PFJ will not compensate parties injured or harmed through 
Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In addition, the PFJ will not take 
into account all Microsoft gains made through its illegal 
maneuverings. With all due respect, the final settlement is 
basically acknowledging the acceptance of Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. What kind of message does this send out to the 
public? I can assure you that the message is clear and simple. The 
Proposed Final Judgment encourages big corporations to engage in 
monopolistic and predatory conduct, which in turn is detrimental to 
the technology industry at large. With all due respect your honor, I 
am outraged at such a preposterous proposal that only helps 
Microsoft to remain intact and continue with its unethical 
practices. To the court, I submit my objection to this Proposed 
Final Judgment.
    All the Best,
    James Anthony
    Lodi, CA



MTC-00011220

From: janernest funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:45am


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    With all due respect, I am stating my personal objection to the 
so-called Proposed Final Judgment in regards to the Microsoft case. 
As history will prove, Microsoft continues to violate Anti-Trust 
laws. As a matter of fact, the final settlement does not deny 
Microsoft its past violations and illegal acts. As one can see, 
every court, which has been involved with the case, has found 
Microsoft guilty of breaking the anti-trust laws. However, under the 
proposed final settlement, Microsoft, surprisingly enough, will be 
permitted to retain most if not all profits gained through their 
illicit activities. In addition, the PFJ will not compensate parties 
injured or harmed through Microsoft's egregious misdeeds. In 
addition, the PFJ will not take into account all Microsoft gains 
made through its illegal maneuverings. With all due respect, the 
final settlement is basically acknowledging the acceptance of 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. What kind of message does 
this send out to the public? I can assure you that the message is 
clear and simple. The Proposed Final Judgment encourages big 
corporations to engage in monopolistic and predatory conduct, which 
in turn is detrimental to the technology industry at large. With all 
due respect your honor, I am outraged at such a preposterous 
proposal that only helps Microsoft to remain intact and continue 
with its unethical practices. I submit to you my objection to this 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Ernest Pacual,
    Sacramento, CA



MTC-00011221

From: justin funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    With all due respect your honor, I object to the following 
Proposed Final Judgment. The final proposal undoubtedly gives 
Microsoft complete authority to abuse their existing monopoly 
position. After further review, there is one glaring mistake. The 
flaw entails an inept enforcement mechanism to implement 
restrictions on Microsoft. With in the settlement, Microsoft will be 
closely scrutinized and monitored to comply with all restrictions 
entailed in the stated agreement. Supposedly, a three man compliance 
team will oversee and insure that Microsoft comply with the stated 
rules and regulations. However after closer inspection, this 
proposal only benefits Microsoft in the end. The three-man oversight 
team will be composed of the following: one appointee from the 
Justice Department, one appointee from Microsoft, and another 
appointee chosen by the two existing members. In turn, Microsoft 
will control half of the oversight team. Also, in the likelihood of 
any enforcement proceeding, all findings by the oversight committee 
will not be allowed into court. The sole purpose of the committee is 
to inform the Justice Department of all infractions by Microsoft. 
Subsequently the Justice Depart will launch its own investigation 
into the matter and commence


[[Page 25428]]


litigation to halt all infractions. 
When all is said and done, the oversight committee is just a 
complete smoke screen. In turn, this team will not strictly oversee 
Microsoft's business moves. In many aspects, the Proposed Final 
Judgment does not provide adequate or appropriate restrictions and 
penalties against Microsoft. One cannot take comfort in the fact 
that the Proposed Final Judgment helps Microsoft's illegal and 
illicit activities. Therefore I submit to the court my objection to 
the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Justin Montefrio
    Lodi, CA



MTC-00011222

From: serafin jimenez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am filing my personal objection to the proposed final judgment 
on the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has found Microsoft 
guilty of violating all rules of proper business ethics and 
practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the 
Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court 
findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft 
to continue with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in 
my opinion is a detriment not only to the software sector but also 
to the technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly 
believe you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing 
the many flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. 
My main focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the 
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up 
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current 
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business 
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most 
monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard Oil, are either 
broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft is given a 
pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb altogether.
    Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by the 
Department of Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's existing 
operation methodologies. As history has proven over and over again, 
Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position at the 
expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is done such as 
breaking up Microsoft's business into several parts or meting out 
severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement 
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed 
Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
    Respectfully,
    Serafin Jimenez
    Lodi, CA



MTC-00011223

From: arlene funa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I adamantly oppose the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft 
case. All courts, involved with the case, have found Microsoft 
guilty of violating all anti-trust laws implemented by the Justice 
Department. The PFJ basically throws out all previous court findings 
indicting Microsoft. In other words, Microsoft has been given the 
green light to continue on with its monopolistic endeavors. I'd like 
to focus on one fundamental flaw present with in the proposed 
settlement: For the most part, the proposed final settlement does 
not sufficiently break up Microsoft. Instead, the settlement allows 
Microsoft to utilize and leverage its current market position to 
branch out into other technology markets. Most monopolies in the 
past, such as Standard Oil, are either broken up or carefully 
regulated. However in this case, Microsoft is given a full waiver to 
this rule altogether. Also, a severe reprimand by the Department of 
Justice will not change Microsoft's present operating methods. 
Without a doubt, Microsoft will abuse its monopoly position at the 
expense of others. Unless something drastic is done such as breaking 
up Microsoft itself, Microsoft will continue to commit egregious 
offenses. Thus I submit to the Court that the Proposed Final 
Judgment is a huge mistake.
    Best Regards,
    Ping Funa
    Sacramento, CA



MTC-00011224

From: Peter Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is neither fair nor 
appropriate, and rewards monopolistic behaviour that has destroyed 
many companies and severely distorted the market for software. 
Actions to date have failed to understand the breadth of Microsoft's 
monopoly, or the ways in which they continue to enforce it. In 
particular, the Office package is used highly successfully to reduce 
the ability of users to change operating systems platforms. 
Microsoft should be ordered to place the Microsoft Office file 
formats (for Excel, Access, Word, Powerpoint) in the public domain, 
and to be given equal voting rights with a range of parties for 
changes in this format. Microsoft should be forced to maintain 
adherence to this structure as its primary file format. Such a 
change would make it immediately possible for others (such as 
StarOffice or WordPerfect) to use the same format, either as its 
principal storage mechanism or for interchange. Competition would 
then be based on the best software tools on the best platform, 
rather than the lock-in that is created by Microsoft's frequent 
changes to an unpublished format. This change would be far more 
effective than any other remedy, and should be extended to open 
publication of all file formats for any product that Microsoft 
produces.
    Sincerely
    Peter Black
    Dr Peter Black
    Lead Architect
    Digital Steps Limited, 1 Bell Court, Leapale Lane, Guildford GU1 
4LY


    Tel: +44 7976 243 919



MTC-00011225

From: arnie mamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am voicing my personal discuss and outrage at the proposed 
final judgment in the Microsoft case. Supposedly, the Court has 
found Microsoft guilty of violating all rules of proper business 
ethics and practices. However with the PFJ (Proposed Final 
Judgment), the Department of Justice throws out, if not abandons all 
previous court findings that indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ 
permits Microsoft to continue with its monopolistic and predatory 
practices, which in my opinion is a detriment not only to the 
software sector but also to the technology industry as a whole. 
Without a doubt, I strongly believe you will receive thousands of 
similar appeals encompassing the many flaws that are apparent in the 
proposed final 


[[Page 25429]]


settlement. My main focus entails one fundamental 
flaw clearly noticeable in the proposed settlement: The PFJ does not 
effectively break up Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to 
leverage its current market position, or should I say, Monopoly to 
expand its business into several other technology markets. Under the 
general rule, most monopolies in the past, such as AT&T and Standard 
Oil, are either broken up or carefully regulated. However, Microsoft 
is given a pardon or a waiver to this general rule of thumb 
altogether. Also, Simple slaps on the wrist or severe reprimands by 
the Department of Justice will not radically alter Microsoft's 
existing operation methodologies. As history has proven over and 
over again, Microsoft will undoubtedly abuse its monopoly position 
at the expense of others. Unless something extraordinary is done 
such as breaking up Microsoft's business into several parts or 
meting out severe punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue 
to implement illegal business practices. Therefore I submit to the 
Court my objection to the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Respectfully,
    Arnie Montefrio
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00011226

From: Anthony Mamon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I object to the proposed final judgment on the Microsoft case. 
The Court has found Microsoft guilty of violating all Anti-Trust 
rules. Yet, the PFJ (Proposed Final Judgment), the Department of 
Justice throws out, if not abandons all previous court findings that 
indicts Microsoft. In fact, the PFJ permits Microsoft to continue 
with its monopolistic and predatory practices, which in my opinion 
is a detriment not only to the software sector but also to the 
technology industry as a whole. Without a doubt, I strongly believe 
you will receive thousands of similar appeals encompassing the many 
flaws that are apparent in the proposed final settlement. My main 
focus entails one fundamental flaw clearly noticeable in the 
proposed settlement: The PFJ does not effectively break up 
Microsoft, but in fact allows Microsoft to leverage its current 
market position, or should I say, Monopoly to expand its business 
into several other technology markets. Under the general rule, most 
monopolies in the past are either broken up or carefully regulated. 
However, Microsoft is given a pardon or a waiver to this general 
rule of thumb altogether. Also, severe reprimands will not 
drastically change Microsoft's existing operation methodologies. 
Undoubtedly, Microsoft will continue to abuse its monopoly position. 
Unless something extraordinary is done such as meting out severe 
punishment, Microsoft will persistently continue to implement 
illegal business practices. I submit to the Court that the Proposed 
Final Judgment does not solve the Microsoft issue.
    All the Best,
    Jun Mamon
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00011227

From: Andy Raynor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:09am
Subject: Microsoft case
    I wish to express my concerns with the ongoing Microsoft anti-
trust trial and the remedies that have been suggested. The current 
proposed remedy, a monitoring system, represents the least effective 
solution imaginable since it relies on independent policing efforts.
    The remedy for Microsoft's violation of anti-trust law and 
violation of previous consent decrees must be two-pronged. Failure 
to implement both portions will fail to compensate consumers harmed 
by the monopolistic behavior and curtail that behavior in the 
future.
    First, the company should be compelled to pay some significant 
sum in the form of computers and software to public school systems 
as Microsoft has offered in its settlement. Consumers are entitled 
to this compensation but associating individual damages to specific 
consumers would be impossible without overwhelming discovery costs. 
The provision of equipment and software to public schools represents 
a good reparation to the citizens of this country for the damages 
incurred.
    The details of Microsoft's donation are critically important. 
Microsoft should be required to provide a pc and software fund for 
each state. This provides each state flexibility on achieving their 
education objectives and allows states to explore open source 
alternatives running on pc hardware. Software must be provided at 
Microsoft's best price. This will greatly increase the real 
compensation received since retail pricing may be between 400%-800% 
higher than volume pricing.
    Apple's opposition to this is entirely self-serving and 
represents an attempt to hold onto ever decreasing market-share 
rather than benefiting consumers. A focus on pc's would allow 
schools to maximize volume discounts for hardware purchases and 
leverage either the growing open source movement or Microsoft 
solutions.
    Second, the company must be broken up. The market is the most 
efficient and reliable mechanism for regulating behavior. Any other 
solution with either be ineffective at changing behavior or much 
more costly. By breaking the company up, management of each company 
will perform in a ``correct'' manner based on market forces.
    I appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
    Andy Raynor



MTC-00011228

From: Mauro Talevi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I very very strongly urge the Department of Justice to ensure 
that the dominant and de-facto monopolistic position that Microsoft 
has gained be corrected--with strong and effective measures. The 
terms of the settlement are clearly insufficient and unsatisfactory 
in this regard. Information technology has enormously grown in 
importance in the last 20 years, and can be comparable to energy and 
telecommunications as strategic and vital economic sectors. In the 
past the Antitrust Act has been applied to oil and 
telecommunications companies.
    This case is equally--if not more--important and critical. 
Monopolies are extremely damaging to any capitalistic system. I hope 
the Department of Justice will act promptly and not be intimidated 
by the catastrophic predictions made by Microsoft.
    With very best regards,
    Mauro Talevi



MTC-00011229

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears that the competitors of Microsoft (and the states 
where they are situated) have decided to improve their lot not by 
being better and having something better to offer the consumer. 
They've decided to punish Microsoft for having a superior product.
    Please be aware that finding in Microsoft's favor, you would be 
doing a great deal for the consumer--and for the economy--since 
millions of us are investors in the company, because we believe in 
it...
    Rita and Richard Monley



MTC-00011230

From: Martin Coles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Having been in the Computer industry for the last 20 years, I 
can only say that Microsoft has performed brilliantly for the 
consumer.
    Through their success and resultant position, they have been 
able to bring down the cost of computing such that it is now 
affordable by everyone.
    Further, the inclusion of various components in the operating 
system is once again in the consumers interest, enabling them to use 
the software easily.


    Multiple operating systems from numerous suppliers would not 
have provided a uniform and easily understandable and affordable 
opportunity for the man on the street to own and use a computer.
    Well done Microsoft!
    Kind regards
    Martin Coles
    Pinnacle Orlando LLC.
    Florida . USA
    407 891 2857
    See our website http://www.thereyougo.net/



MTC-00011231

From: Baumgart, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am adding my comment on the proposed antitrust settlement with 
9 states and Microsoft. It is my opinion that the DOJ has ``gone 
soft'' on Microsoft, dropping some of the key provisions for a just 
and fair settlement. It also appears to me that the DOJ is preparing 
to let Microsoft off with a slap on the hands instead of any real 
penalty.
    Microsoft was convicted of predatory practices aimed at 
squashing the competition and I believe they should be punished. 
Their conviction held up under appeal.
    I agree with the 9 states that ``pulled out'' and are seeking 
tougher remedies.
    David Baumgart
    Executive Director, Information Systems Dept
    John Morrell & Co.
    805 East Kemper Road
    Cincinnati, OH 45246
    (513) 346-3562



MTC-00011232

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
From: Anthony D'Andrea
Box 1209
Randolph MA 02368
Re: Microsoft prosecution
People:
    I still remember the last thing Microsoft produced which, as far 
as I know, was a legitimate creation of their own company. It was a 
Floating-Point BASIC Interpreter for the old Apple II Machines that 
came out around 1979 or so. Since then, it has been all downhill for 
MS.
    It is common knowledge that Bill Gates stole the MS-Dos 
operating system from his partner at Altair, then sold IBM on using 
it for the OS in their first computers which appeared several years 
after the Apples.
    Gates' next lie read like this: ``If you want a personal 
computer that you can hook up to your business mainframe, it will 
have to be an IBM''. Not an ounce of truth in it, but between the 
cosmetic value of the lie and IBM's massive market share, it enabled 
MS to capture a good 85% of market share from what had been mostly 
Apple's territory. Later, after Apple had begun incorporating mouse 
and windows technology into their


[[Page 25430]]


later Apple II's, the Apple III, 
the Lisa and early Macs, MS produced the first version of Windows, 
for which Apple promptly and properly sued them for copyright 
infringement. Apple won that round, and MS's ``Trash Can'' has been 
a ``Recycle Bin'' ever since.
    Unfortunately, the lies and thievery from Gates & Co. was far 
from over. Since that time, every innovation that has come down the 
pike has run headlong into Bill Gates. Innumerable companies have 
had to make the choice between selling out, licensing the technology 
to MS or being driven out of business by being undersold. To this 
day, hardware companies sell their wares at near cost, simply in an 
effort to undercut the competition and keep others like Apple from 
regaining any market share, then they make their profits from the 
software later.I own a Macintosh machine. The machine is equipped 
with a package called ``Virtual PC'', which allows me to run Windows 
on the Mac and use any of MS's software, should I choose to do so. I 
have consistently found Mac software to be far more easy, user-
friendly and stable than the MS equivalents. Still, when I visit 
most software vendors, I find them reluctant, almost fearful, of 
carrying Mac software.Chains such as Walmarts get their stock thru 
central buyers which have shown reluctance in the extreme to carry 
anything BUT MS compatible software. In one case, a chain called 
``Best Buy'', I discovered Mac and Windows versions of identical 
software on the shelf together, with the Mac version selling at $10 
more than the MS version. I summoned the store manager and demanded 
an explanation. I was told that if he did not price the products in 
that fashion, MS would pull all their products from his shelves.This 
has not been the exception, but the rule. How blatant does MS have 
to act before they can be found guilty of racketeering? How 
obviously does a monopoly have to conduct themselves to be 
recognized for what they are? And how many people will have to be 
hurt or driven out of business before someone takes this monster in 
hand and administers justice???
    The dangers of such a concentration of power go far beyond 
simply fair business practices. Their efforts, for instance, to 
modify Sun's JAVA language earned them lawsuits and produced a 
certain degree of confusion among web programmers. Their regular 
introduction of new media formats without the software to allow 
other systems to immediately keep up with the changes provides them 
with additional pressure to sidestep fair competition. And thruout 
these efforts, there is always the MS database, in which a great 
deal of personal information is kept.Does a database of personal 
information provide a threat in and of itself? Of course not. I am 
sure Apple has my name and address somewhere in its files. But think 
of the back-door that MS gave to the NSA, which allows them to enter 
anyone's computer, anywhere in the world, examine the hard drive and 
even read and write on that drive with complete concealment. When 
the Chinese discovered that, they began a campaign to eliminate 
Windows from every machine in their country and replace it with 
Unix. Think also of the Eschalon program, which has had Japanese and 
German authorities angry at us in the USA for some time now, as they 
have justifiable fears of corporate espionage if that aforementioned 
``back-door'' gets into the wrong hands.
    Right now, business has almost no alternative to Windows. And 
since Windows is nearly completely borrowed or stolen technology, 
several years behind Apple and others, and since some real security 
threats exist and grow more ominous on a daily basis, something MUST 
be done and done soon to eliminate this threat.
    The only solution is to deal with Microsoft thru the courts, in 
the most appropriate way possible, under the RICO laws as 
racketeers. By taking them in hand, forcefully, and compelling them 
to adopt practices that will open the market to real competition, 
you will find that rather than hindering development, it will 
enhance the opportunities for competing companies to enter the 
marketplace and speed the development of new technology. The 
companies are already out there, working on new ideas, developing 
approaches to market their ideas while defending their battlements 
from the MS assaults that will surely head their way when the threat 
of innovation becomes visible.
    There are nine states at this time that disagree with the DOJ 
resolution of the case against MS. This may be the last opportunity 
to wield the sword of the Law against a seemingly unassailable 
threat. I beg you, use the power that you have in this just 
cause.For just one of hundreds of sources of more background and 
documentation of the illegal and anti-competitive practices of MS, I 
refer you to this website... http://hive.me.gu.edu.au/csand/md/
0soft.html>http://hive.me.gu.edu.au/csand/md/0soft.html
    Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Your 
response would be appreciated and a dialogue welcomed.
    Anthony D'Andrea
    Randolph Massachusetts



MTC-00011233

From: david zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:43am
Subject: Strcter punishment!
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Microsoft behavior in the past has shown us its greediness and 
its true nature. The punishment should be stricter. If we cannot do 
it today, we will end up in the same situation as we have now with 
Iraq because we did not finish the job at that time. Please, for a 
better and more dynamic and diversified technology world, give 
Microsoft a stricter punishment.
    Sincerely,
    David



MTC-00011234

From: Christopher L. Lupton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to accept the settlement. The Attorney Generals in 
the 9 states opposing the settlement are definitely not acting in 
the best interest of their constituents, our economy or the nation. 
I kindly ask that you


please review this e-mail and take it into consideration during your 
decision.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher L. Lupton
    President
    InfoDynamics, Inc.
    7351 Shadeland Station, STE 260
    Indianapolis, IN 46256



MTC-00011235

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, settle this issue as soon as possible. Microsoft is a 
fine company and should be allowed to get on with its business. It 
is bad enough to permit these states to extort millions from 
Microsoft. Do not compound the damages by delaying the conclusion.
    James G. Hauf



MTC-00011236

From: Neil Stahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:56am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement: Don't Do It
    Sirs:
    The future of the American computer industry is in your hands. 
It will be a bleak future if Microsoft is left as the monopoly your 
proposed settlement would achieve.
    As long as one company makes the dominant operating system and 
applications it will always have an incredible advantage in both 
markets and will have little reason to innovate or to do a good job. 
This is born out by the way Microsoft has achieved dominance in both 
markets, from a start where there were many competitors and software 
was evolving fast. If you are watching the evolution of software 
now, you must notice it has slowed to a crawl. If you are watching 
the quality of software Microsoft produces you have seen security 
for our computers running their software is remarkably poor. In a 
market with real competition this wouldn't happen, market forces 
would correct it.
    As a computer user I urge you:
    1. Do not go through with this settlement.
    2. Do split Microsoft into two or more parts, isolating the part 
that makes operating systems from the rest.
    Sincerely,
    Neil Stahl
    248 Rainbow Drive #14876
    Livingston, Tx. 77399-2048



MTC-00011237

From: Larry Hannay
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe the way you guys are buckling under. Current 
situations, now matter how extreme, should have nothing to do with 
resolving the problem at hand. I think legislators that have been, 
shall we say, ``influenced'', by Microsoft campaign contributions 
are using the Sept. 11th tragedy and the economy in general to go 
easy on Microsoft without incurring a negative public response. And 
I think that stinks. Especially since it is your job to represent 
the public's best interests. But as always, the public loses 


[[Page 25431]]


out to 
corporate concerns. I spend a lot of time reading newspapers and 
technical magazines, and every stinking article I have read points 
out that not only is Microsoft not getting punished, but your so-
called ``solution'' will help it to increase its monopoly by giving 
it inroads to the school market that Apple now does so well in. If 
every stinking magazine article author can see this, then why can't 
you? Huh? You people disgust me. And then you wonder why the voting 
populace is so cynical and uninvolved. Or is that the way you want 
it.
    Please don't bother to respond. Your ``spin'' makes me sick.
    Larry Hannay
    16 Cutter Ave.
    Somerville, MA



MTC-00011238

From: Rail, Marcus E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8'00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
See attached Microsoft WORD document for comments.
Renata B. Hesse January 15, 2002
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    This letter is written to comment on the Department of Justice 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    As a corporate purchaser of Microsoft products, we conclude that 
the settlement does nothing to address the real concerns of the 
customer. Those concerns involve the increasing ability of Microsoft 
to set extreme pricing policies without fear of customer loss, and 
to design products without proper concern to the customer's needs. 
Microsoft products have served our company fairly well in many areas 
and we believe Microsoft brought many innovations to PC desktop 
tools. However, we also believe that Microsoft used questionable 
practices to drive out the competition or acquire it at a very low 
cost. For the most part, especially for products like WINDOWS, 
OFFICE, and INTERNET EXPLORER, we feel we had and still have no real 
alternative to Microsoft products.
    Our other software vendors who work with Microsoft endure 
extreme pressure to do it Microsoft's way. If they don't, they face 
severe penalties by a company that truly controls the desktop 
market. Rather than respond to the customer, we find many of our 
vendors responding to Microsoft so that Microsoft revenues are 
maximized.
    We question the ``freedom to innovate'' banner that Microsoft 
uses to justify their practices. In fact, all we see is slavery to 
Microsoft for customers and other software vendors. It may be that 
Microsoft could have won its present monopolist position just 
through the quality of its products and hard work. We'll never 
really know. We do know that they are now exercising that 
monopolistic position to the detriment of the customer. We are now 
being forced to pay millions of dollars to upgrade to product 
versions we don't need. The only viable alternative given to us is 
to pay much higher prices when they finally force us into 
obsolescence. All software companies try to generate revenue through 
planned obsolescence, however, only a monopolist can carry it to the 
extent that Microsoft has, and make the profits it has. The present 
proposed settlement barely slaps Microsoft on the wrist for past 
practices and will not deter it from future anti-competitive 
practices. Moreover, the root of the problem Microsoft's control of 
both the dominant desktop operating system and the major application 
software for desktops--will result in costs for the consumer that 
are not controlled by competition and not in line with the value 
delivered.
    Marcus E. Rally Manager, System Software, Information Systems, 
Cooper Tire Company
    John E. Mitchell Vice-President, Information Systems, Cooper 
Tire Company
    Todd E. Shin Barger Director, Information Systems, Cooper 
Standard Automotive
    Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Lima & Western Aves., Findlay, 
Ohio 45840



MTC-00011239

From: Ronald Ford
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Ford
1211 S.W. Anita St
Arcadia, Fl 34266

January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice ,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald T. Ford



MTC-00011240

From: Alan L. Hansen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan L. Hansen
124 North 155st


Shoreline, Wa 98133-5926
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alan L. Hansen



MTC-00011241

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am a personal computer user. I think the settlement that has 
been reached is fair and should be approved. That will allow the 
public to continue receiving the services of the many new products 
that Microsoft can develop for our computers.
    Thomas F. Sullivan
    219 Alpine Dr.
    Winter haven, FL 33881



MTC-00011242

From: William Enouen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: At a time when American Industry is challenged to 
continue to do better and the technology firms are in a downturn, it 
would seem appropriate to conclude some of the legal activities 
against Microsoft with just settlements rather than letting such 
settlements drag on, costing the company and its shareholders and 
the government and its taxpayers. The case should be concluded and 
the settlement agreed upon allowed so both parties can get on with 
more effective use of their time. Thanks for your attention.



MTC-00011243

From: Jim Presley
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8:18am


[[Page 25432]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement--No!
    Hey, I thought you guys were supposed to be protecting us from 
predators-- not siding with them! What kind of Justice Department 
have we got here? A bunch of toadies for political donors.



MTC-00011244

From: John Keyes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To whom it concerns,
    I think the settlement is a betrayal of America. It is an insult 
to suggest that the terms of the settlement are sufficient. 
Micro$oft will continue its predatory approach to the software 
market and will continue to hold institutes of education to ransom. 
It is time to resolve the issue and extract adequate compensation 
from Microsoft for the companies that have been damaged and for 
every child whose education costs rise as a result of disgusting 
licensing terms. It is also necessary so the collective power and 
choice of a free market can begin to thrive in the software market.
    -John Keyes
    Ireland



MTC-00011245

From: Morris, Perry
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to get on with life......this has drug on long enough. 
The public will not be well served to have this linger on.
    Thank you,
    Perry Morris
    Coordinator, Computer Applications
    Facilities Operations and Maintenance
    Florida State University
    850.644.8699
    [email protected]



MTC-00011246

From: Julie Noll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Again, I am outraged. While reading the article in USA Today, 
dated 1/15/2002, written by Kevin Maney, Silicon Valley CEOs don't 
pull verbal punches, I couldn't believe what I was reading. ``In one 
corner is the tag team of Larry Ellison, CEO of database software 
company Oracle, and Scott McNealy, CEO of computer maker Sun 
Microsystems. In the other corner: their professed enemy, Microsoft, 
and its leader, Bill Gates. Ellison and McNealy consistently and 
publicly hurl harsh, sometimes personal and sometimes funny insults 
at Microsoft and Gates. Ellison has called Microsoft products 
``pathetic'' and motivated employees by showing a computer-generated 
image of Gates giving them the finger. McNealy has referred to Gates 
as ``Butthead,'' compared his management skill with Bozo the Clown 
and proclaimed that the battle of the future is ``mankind vs. 
Microsoft.'' I cannot believe our government would allow themselves 
to be influenced by CEO such as Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison. If 
you ask me I believe their tactics need to be further investigated. 
I have wrote many times before this case is no longer about justice. 
It is simply a few CEO allowed to use our government to further 
their causes.
    I am growing ever tired of all these grown men acting like 
babies. What they need to do is simply create great products, build 
their companies and stop whining.
    It is time settle this entirely.
    Julie Anne



MTC-00011247

From: Gerhard Beck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:28am
Subject: Additional Remedies
    Microsoft continues to work towards the utter destruction of any 
possible competition. Currently in Microsoft's sites are Java and 
Linux. It is informative that because of Microsoft's monopoly 
position, only products offerred free (such as Java and Linux), 
cause any threat to Microsoft.
    I would propose the following remedies:
    1) Microsoft be forced to charge a minimum price for each piece 
of bundled software such as the Media player, Word, Excel, 
PowerPoint. The charge would be separately stated and users could 
decline to purchase the software with thier new machine. This would 
create a price evelope which competitors could exist within.
    2) Microsoft be forced to include the latest release of Java 
unmodified with its latest releases of Windows. This would ease the 
integration burdens for Java-based competitive packages.
    3) Microsoft be forced to release Linux versions of its 
Microsoft Office suite at the same time as comparable Windows 
versions. This would be extremely helpful in developing Linux as a 
viable competitor to Microsoft on the desktop.
    4) Microsoft be forced to stop bundling software with Windows or 
Office and be forced to charge for the software. Since both products 
are basically provided with all machines, anything Microsoft bundles 
in destroys a previously existing market since it is hard to get 
folks to pay for what Microsoft provides for free.
    5) Microsoft be forced to charge one price for Windows both 
retail and wholesale to manufacturers. Microsoft's current scheme 
strongly encourages the purchase of a new machine to get a new copy 
of Windows because the retail cost of Windows is so high compared to 
the cost of a new machine with the same copy of Windows. Since the 
cost to duplicate a CD is so cheap, there is no econimic 
justification for the discounts given.
    Gerhard Beck
    703 676 4403



MTC-00011248

From: e cummings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    rather than rewarding the guilty party (microsoft) by allowing 
them to continue monopolizing their markets, (under the guise of 
donating their products to schools and such) i think a more fitting 
punishment would be to compel microsoft to sponsor independent 
contractors to install the freeand open-standard Linux operating 
system and compatible program on the computers they donate, 
and to train students, faculty, and other 
users on the use of Linux.
    allowing microsoft to ``lock in'' even more customers by 
compelling the company to indoctrinate even more people in the use 
of their closed, proprietary products is no punishment at all. 
allowing microsoft to write off the retail cost of any software they 
donate is a reward--the company's true cost for this extra software 
is negligible, and they will profit from the sale of ``upgrades.'' 
(the term ``upgrades'' is in quotes because traditionally 
microsoft's upgrades primarily consist of bug fixes and patches to 
their already faulty products.)
    ed cummings



MTC-00011249

From: Paul Speer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:29am
Subject: Do not settle--the 1930s parallel
    In the 1930s, the motion picture industry (read applications 
software) controlled the theaters (read operating system). The DO] 
brought suit and broke up this set of monopolies (different 
companies owned different theater chains). The same principle 
applies here.
    Microsoft makes and will continue to make economic rents from 
the present system. In so doing unnecessary costs are added to 
businesses using MS products which are passed on to the consumers. 
Having the Windows operating systems opened to the entry of 
applications software without the present arbitrary constraints can 
only be assured through a break-up of the monopoly.
    Paul Speer
    [email protected]



MTC-00011250

From: Dave G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:40am
Subject: Apple in Schools
    The big move in education is standardization on skills that will 
do the most good. Learn math basics, learn english basics, etc.. The 
political engine has dictated to schools that they need to teach 
only things that have value in the market place.
    Based on this logic, Apple should be as popular in schools as 
UNIX computers. Apple Macintosh is a niche machine used primarily by 
print shops and graphic designers. UNIX is a bigger niche product 
used primarily in enterprise server environments. Both can be, and 
in the case of UNIX is learned in college for specialized fields. 
The rest of the world for the most part uses Windows with or without 
MS applications. Like it or not, that is the economic and business 
norm. Hence, our children should be tought this because it IS the 
norm. My kids went to a grade school that bought gobs of iMacs. They 
sat in the halls in boxes for two years. Eventually the teachers 
ended up setting up the machines. These machines were rarely even 
used. The reason was the schools IT dept. did not understand Mac nor 
did they care to. No one wrote an education plan using Mac software. 
These machine were simply a waste of


[[Page 25433]]



donation. My kids have moved on 
to Jr. High. The school is just dripping with Dell Wintel boxes, 4 
to every classroom and several all computer labs. Not an Apple to be 
seen. These conputers are up and running and being used. Sorry 
Steve. As fo software bundling, everyone does it. MS does, Apple 
does, Linux does, even big UNIX vendors do. That is how you get 
consumers to buy. Apple comes with both Netscape and Explorer and 
iTunes, and CD-Creator, and etc..... Why are these other companies 
not being censored for their use. Back when the Netscape/Explorer 
issue was hot, the argument was MS was giving their browser away. So 
was Netscape. I have never paid for a browser. I only switched to 
Explorer when Netscape became an unusable application under version 
4. Even today, when designing web pages, you still have to becareful 
to code around Netscape's poor programming habits.
    Enough from one person.
    Dave Gould
    Graphic Designer (My Macintosh side)
    MSCE (My Microsoft side)
    Geek (My Linux side)



MTC-00011251

From: Koestler, Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear United States Dept. of Justice, Under the Tunney Act, I 
would like to provide my comments regarding the Microsoft 
settlement.
    As a US citizen and a tax payer, I'm very concerned and quite 
frankly disappointed about the continued efforts of my government to 
pursue a company that continues to innovate. Here is a company that 
started with nothing, developed quality software at very competitive 
prices, became successful and now the government wants to punish 
them. Microsoft's software continues to deliver more features, 
integrate additional applications, increase performance, all at 
lower prices. As a consumer, I'm not sure how I'm harmed.
    I disagree with the appeals court ruling against Microsoft, but 
respect there decision. I feel the recent settlement reached is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I, along 
with many others consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is 
good for them, the industry and the American economy. I hope you 
reach the same conclusion.
    Regards,
    Jim Koestler
    Manager, Sales Engineering



MTC-00011252

From: Cartier, Philip
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8:54am
Subject: MS Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I think the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case 
is totally inadequate. As a user and occasional buyer of MS 
products, this settlement does nothing to reduce the excessive 
prices, poor functionality, and lack of choice that I have faced in 
the software market due to Microsoft's predatory practices. In 
addition, the proposed settlement simply extends the Microsoft 
monopoly to one of the few remaining areas where it is not the major 
supplier- the education market. The only kind of settlement that 
provides meaningful redress for us abused customers would be one 
that would prevent future abuses. That would mean significant 
penalties, i.e. cash payments that are at least 10-20% of published 
profits over the last five years and criminal charges against the 
current and future management if abuses occur again.
    Phil Cartier
    ph: 5167



MTC-00011253

From: Bev Mautner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:56am
Subject: I support the recent settlement between US DOJ and 
Microsoft
Bev and Mark Mautner
600 SW 100 Terrace
Pembroke Pines, FL 33025
Jan 15, 2002,
US Attorney General John Ashcroft, DOJ
    Dear Mr Ashcroft,
    End this protracted litigation. Enough is enough. The settlement 
is fair.. I support the recent settlement between the US DOJ and 
MIcrosoft. Some of the terms seem fair and reasonable. Others, I do 
not feel knowledgeable enough to make a judgement call on, but one 
of those terms, I am concerned about. This involves the issue of 
being forced to give up the internal interfaces and protocols needed 
to develop products that are compatible with Window' operating 
systems. Let's face it. Microsoft has without a doubt been one of 
the principal driving forces behind America being the leader in 
technology advancements in computerization. I object to any 
government entity not protecting their property and/or intellectual 
rights. Microsoft has worked hard and spent incredible amounts of 
money and devoted much of their resources to making products and 
developing new technologies that spin off entire new industries. It 
is essential that companies be reassured their intellectual property 
rights are protected by the American justice system whether they be 
a company has powerful as Microsoft or the next ``Bill Gates wanna 
be''.
    I therefore urge your office to persuade the nine states holding 
out to settle, and bring closure to this long and protracted 
lawsuit.
    Sincerely yours,
    Beverly and Mark Mautner



MTC-00011254

From: Ferraro, James A
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I think it would be in the American publics interest that the 
DOJ look into the Enron Case than to waste time attacking Microsoft 
for helping to make this the financially strongest nation in the 
world.
    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-00011255

From: Lloyd, Chris M.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for allowing the public to comment on the referenced 
settlement for Microsoft Corporation. I urge the Department of 
Justice to accept the terms of the antitrust settlement and 
immediately stop this endless waste of public tax resources. From my 
perspective, the Justice Department and the nine states contesting 
this settlement are tilting at windmills, wasting the tax payers 
investment and needlessly persecuting one of the most innovative and 
creative private enterprises of both the 20th and 21st centuries. I 
would rather the resources we are using to witch hunt a major 
American corporation be diverted to the attack on terrorist 
organizations in this country.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to weigh in.
    Chris
    Chris M. Lloyd, AICP, REM
    Senior Supervising Planner
    Parsons Brinckerhoff
    757-466-9675 Office, 757-466-1493 Fax,
    757-581-9695 Cell
    [email protected]



MTC-00011256

From: Danielson, Miguel C.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    For the past 10 years, I have watched in terrific disgust at the 
effect of Microsoft, Inc.'s business tactics on average American 
consumers. For much of this time period, I have been a casual 
computer purchase consultant and/or Internet development consultant. 
In both capacities, I have seen the process of decision making in 
computer hardware and software purchases.
    Consumers, particularly in the field of high-technology, are 
incredibly swayed by the options presented to them at retail 
locations in their area. For more years than I wish to think about, 
such options were horribly limited. There was essentially one choice 
of operating system on one choice of platform. This is all well and 
good, but when the choice of Internet Service Provider and Internet 
browser are then thrust upon such consumers by the same provider of 
the operating system, the choices seem to evaporate.
    When I first began using the Internet in 1994, Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer wasn't even in existence, of course. For many 
years after that, nobody would touch a non-Netscape browser. This 
was all well and good, just as it was fine that Microsoft dominated 
the computer market. But Netscape never had a true monopoly on its 
product, and it never took advantage of any marketplace dominance it 
had. As the years went by, the inclusion of Internet Explorer on 
Windows machines was simply too easy for people to avoid. Though 
virtually every person of technical computer knowledge I knew 
preferred Netscape, Internet Explorer


[[Page 25434]]


somehow became the standard 
for Web browsing.
    As an Internet developer, I struggled with the mess that 
Microsoft created by supporting only certain HTML standards in its 
Internet Explorer. Moreover, it extended the HTML command set so Web 
programmers could do things with their Web browser that weren't 
``allowed'' by the HTML standard that makes the Web run. Developers 
found themselves having to design three different versions of the 
same website because of Microsoft's marketplace antics.
    With the dawn of Linux, it seems as though, at least for the 
power users, there was some choice in operating system. Of course, 
Microsoft swiftly ended such hope by making sure major PC 
manufacturers couldn't offer any such alternative operating system 
and still sell Windows in addition. All of these examples are to say 
nothing of the predatory business tactics that Microsoft employed to 
extinguish smaller software and hardware businesses that might 
legitimately compete with them. To be a lawyer in the high-tech 
industry is to know of many stories of the Microsoft bullying that 
is commonplace among companies they see as a threat to them. It is 
truly a farce that Microsoft purports to be a company of innovation. 
It is well known amongst computer buffs like myself that Microsoft 
has never have a creative thought in its collective corporate 
history. It acquires what it wants and fills in the holes. This does 
not create value for consumers--it reduce what they see in the 
marketplace and limits them to a single provider.
    Please reconsider your course of easing the punishment for 
Microsoft. The computer and Internet industries will only continue 
to spiral downward if Microsoft's antics are not swiftly defeated. 
Under NO circumstances should they be allowed to put their operating 
system or other products into the hands of consumers. Regardless of 
whether such products are delivered for free, it is well known that 
the use of these products by consumers will only further Microsoft's 
goal of universal adoption and continued monopolization. It MUST be 
a requirement that any software or computers donated as a part of 
the settlement must be non-Microsoft related.
    Thank you,
    Miguel Danielson
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00011257

From: Suzie Overman
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Suzie Overman
8055 Creekwood Cir. E.
Southaven, MS 38671
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice: The 
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Suzie Overman



MTC-00011258

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:02am
Subject: Settlement
    The very idea of allowing microsoft to place its own products 
into schools as part of its monoply ``cure'' is ludicrous beyond 
words. Please help build a little faith in the government by making 
this part of the settlement PURE CASH
    Thanks
    Ted Ciolli
    2000 Seven Hills Road
    Jefferson City, MO 65101



MTC-00011259

From: Mr Bleakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
    Sirs: My opinion is SETTLE. Get off Microsofts back. Mr. 
Bleakley



MTC-00011260

From: James Eshleman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US Department of Justice:
    I strongly support the proposed settlement between the US 
Government and Microsoft. This trial has gone on for long enough and 
with or economy in recession the last thing we need to do is harass 
profitable US companies like Microsoft.
    From the beginning this case has seemed like Netscape, AOL-Time 
Warner, Sun, and other Microsoft competitors have been pushing to 
have Microsoft broken up, or punished, and not because they believe 
Microsoft is stifling innovation and hurting consumers, but the 
opposite. Microsoft is innovating and lowering the prices of 
computer software all the time, but companies like Netscape who have 
an inferior products can't keep up, don't forget that before 
Microsoft started giving away Internet Explorer, Netscape was 
charging for its Communicator browser.


    The settlement is a good idea, and hopefully it'll go through. 
Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies the US has, and we 
need to realize that and let them keeping operating and out-
performing the competition.
    Thanks,
    James Roy Eshleman
    Charlotte, NC



MTC-00011261

From: Marty McClamma
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In section C: I think that having a MS employee oversee MS is 
like having a Cat watch over a bird. The settlement would have more 
effect if MS had to pay for a Federal Employee to over see MS.
    Marty McClamma



MTC-00011262

From: Harold Burstyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement does not meet the needs 
of consumers. It will leave Microsoft's unlawful monopoly largely 
intact. Nothing in Microsoft's market behavior since the appellate 
remand suggests that they are prepared to play by the rules 
applicable to companies that have a monopoly. In fact, everything 
they have done, since the D. C. Circuit unanimously upheld the 
judgment of monopoly, to increase their products' position in the 
marketplace has undercut free and fair competition. I believe the 
District Court should reject the proposed settlement and encourage 
the settling states to join the non-settling states in continuing 
the litigation until Microsoft is forced to change its behavior. 
Harold L. Burstyn, Attorney-at-Law (NY & FL) and Registered Patent 
Attorney 216 Bradford Parkway, Syracuse NY 13224-1767, tel. (315) 
445-0620



MTC-00011263

From: Norman Plankey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am appalled by the current degree of ?justice? being levied in 
the Microsoft anti-trust suit: does this current administration dole 
out favors ONLY to the powerful and wealthy, while turning a blind 
eye to the average American? I believe Ashcroft/Bush/Gates are 
playing a dangerous game and the majority of Americans are fed-up 
with big business calling the shots through government officials (in 
the olden days, we used to call them ?elected officials? but that 
too has become an arcane phrase). regards,
    Norman Plankey
    129 Good Hill Rd
    Oxford, CT 06478
    203-881-1390



MTC-00011264

From: Roy C. Dixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


[[Page 25435]]


    U.S. Department of Justice:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting comments on the 
United States v. Microsoft settlement. Please see the attached 
Microsoft Word document that briefly summarizes the significant 
costs of Microsoft's innovation to one of its customers.
    In preparing this document I have tried to report only factual 
details about the use of one of Microsoft's programming products and 
not make any accusations on what development practices within 
Microsoft were the basis for the problems experienced by this 
customer.
    Roy C. Dixon
    Cary, North Carolina



MTC-00011264-0001

    The purpose of this document is to relate how innovation by the 
Microsoft Corporation has affected one of its customers. It will 
focus on one Microsoft product, Microsoft Office, specifically 
Microsoft Access 2000, and how Microsoft/Es innovation has resulted 
in significant costs to this customer. The cost has been reflected 
not only in terms of dollars, but also in ease-of-use and 
performance.
    The customer in this case is a church that needed a database 
product to maintain information about its members. In the early 
1990/Es, Microsoft introduced Access 2.0 at an introductory price of 
$99.00, a price significantly below other database products. This 
purchase proved to be a wise investment since Microsoft Access 2.0 
was a very well designed product that was extremely easy to use. In 
fact, the set of help menus offered by this product are unsurpassed 
by any other programming product this author has used.
    A Microsoft Access 2.0 database was designed by the author of 
this document and deployed by the church on multiple computer 
systems that were interconnected through a local area network. By 
splitting the database into two components, an application component 
and a data component, multiple members of the church staff could 
each use a copy of the application component of the database at one 
time and share the single copy of the data component of the 
database. This is classically the way a Microsoft Access database is 
deployed over a local area network.
    During the 1990 decade, the church also used other Microsoft 
Office products, Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, and Outlook 
Express. Although some members of the church staff would of 
preferred to use other competing products (the church secretary and 
the associate pastor preferred Corel WordPerfect over Microsoft 
Word), using only Microsoft products provided a level of 
interoperability among the products that was not always possible 
with using a collection of competing products. If the Microsoft 
Corporation had defined and negotiated with its competitors a set of 
common programming interfaces, the church would have had an option 
to employ one or more competitor products in conjunction with it/Es 
Microsoft Access database. Late in the decade the church was 
compelled to upgrade their versions of Microsoft Word and Microsoft 
Excel. Microsoft had released updated versions of their office 
software, specifically Office 95 and Office 97, and the file data 
formats were incompatible with the earlier version of Microsoft 
Office that was being used by the church. Files received from 
members of the church drafted in these newer versions could not be 
read with the older Microsoft Office software. So the church was 
obligated to upgrade the Microsoft Office software, even though the 
old software completely suited the needs of the church staff.
    At this time, Microsoft had just released Office 2000 and the 
decision was made to upgrade to this new release. This included 
updating Microsoft Access from 2.0 to 2000. This has since proven to 
be a mistake. Microsoft Access 2000, a complete rewrite of the older 
versions of Microsoft Access, is basically a very poor product. It 
is extremely difficult to use as a design tool and the programming 
interface is extremely complex. Furthermore, the help menus within 
Microsoft Access 2000 and the other Microsoft Office 2000 programs 
produce an overabundance of references for a given search (50 or 
more is not uncommon), many of which have absolutely nothing to do 
with the search topic. In this author/Es opinion, the Microsoft 
Access 2000 product is basically unusable.
    But a more serious problem is that to run Microsoft Access 2000 
requires a computer system with a relatively high-speed processor 
(at least 400 MHz) and a considerable amount of memory (at least 256 
Megabytes) to provide an acceptable level of performance. This meant 
that the church had to replace three of its four computers, an 
expense that the church should not of occurred. One of the computers 
was kept since it had been purchased in the previous year and 
additional memory was added to this computer. Due to extremely poor 
performance of Access 2000 over a local area network, the church 
staff is still using Microsoft Access 2.0 on this one computer. 
Fortunately in the past month, a church member has donated a 
computer to the church that will allow the church staff to replace 
this remaining computer system.
    Given that the church can overcome the performance problems with 
Microsoft Access 2000 by purchasing new computer systems does not 
overcome the technical deficiencies within Microsoft Access 2000. 
Specific concerns are programming services that have worked properly 
within previous versions of Access, 2.0 and 97, but do not work 
within Microsoft Access 2000. The author has stumbled on a handful 
of such problems, all of which have been documented by Microsoft as 
being known problems. The sidebar on this page illustrates one of 
these problems. Now the church has decided to use the e-mail support 
within Microsoft Access to send reports to its members over the 
Internet. Once this service is made available to the church staff, 
considerable savings will result due to reduced mailing costs. This 
employs a programming statement called SendObject. This programming 
statement works properly within Microsoft Access 2.0 and Access 97. 
When executed within Microsoft Access 2000, however, the program 
reports that an


illegal operation has been performed and the program shuts itself 
down. Microsoft has documented this to be a problem within Access 
2000 and has suggested a five-page code module to replace the 
existing code that executes the SendObject statement (this problem 
has been corrected in Microsoft Access 2002).
    So the first question to be asked is why Microsoft failed to 
detect this error during testing of Access 2000 and why have they 
not supplied a program update to correct this problem? Furthermore, 
the Microsoft Knowledge Base article referenced in footnote ( 
NOTEREF --Ref534630788 \h 7) contains the following qualifying 
statements: ??The following code may not work properly if you have 
installed the Outlook E-mail Security Update.?? ??If you have 
limited programming experience, you may want to contact a Microsoft 
Certified Partner or the Microsoft fee-based consulting line at 
(800) 936-5200.0 ??NOTE: This code has only been tested by using 
Microsoft Outlook as the MAPI client. It may not work with other 
MAPI-enabled mail applications. Microsoft does not support the use 
of this sample code with third- party MAPI applications.??
    And thus the second question to be asked is why Microsoft, a 
corporation that states its innovative practices are for their 
customers/E benefit, would need to make such statements? The option 
exists to invest in upgrading all the computers at the church to 
Microsoft Office XP (i.e., Access 2002). Thus the church would again 
be faced with paying Microsoft Corporation additional funds for 
newer versions of programming products that have little value over 
the older versions. Furthermore, the author will not only need to 
upgrade his home computer with Microsoft Office XP, but will have to 
purchase new versions of at least two development tools and more 
than likely invest in a couple of new reference books. The author 
believes that these development tools are critical in designing a 
Microsoft Access database of any magnitude.
    If the decision is made by the church staff to upgrade the 
church computers to Microsoft Access 2002, the author will still 
design and develop the church/Es database within a prior version, 
probably Microsoft Access 97. This version of Access has proven to 
be stable, usable, and provides a reasonable set of help menus. 
Furthermore, the author already owns the Access 97 versions of the 
development tools mentioned in the previous paragraph. This means 
that the database will require conversion to Microsoft Access 2002 
every time a new update is provided to the church. Based upon the 
author/Es experience with converting a database to Microsoft Access 
2000 this conversion process is not completely automatic, requiring 
a number of manual changes and additions after the program completes 
the conversion process.
    Thus as the church migrates from the earlier versions of 
Microsoft Access (2.0 and 97) to the later versions (2000 and 2002), 
the following observations can be made: The performance of the 
database program has decreased significantly. The usability of the 
design interface to the program has decreased significantly. Some 
original design and


[[Page 25436]]


programming constructs are specifically not 
supported. Many new design and programming constructs have been 
poorly implemented and tested. The usefulness of the help menus and 
technical manuals has degenerated significantly. Services within the 
database program interoperate with fewer supporting programs. Along 
with the monetary expenses mentioned earlier, these are the ever-
recurring costs to a customer for Microsoft/Es innovation through 
its Access database program product!



MTC-00011264-0003

    Mike Gunderloy within his article on Access 2002 in the June 
2001 issue of Smart Access states, ``Subform and subreport design is 
also much improved in Access 2002 from Access 2000. For starters, 
the scrollbars for a subform or subreport in design view now scroll 
in increments small enough to be useful, making it possible to edit 
subforms/reports in place without making you want to throw the 
keyboard through the monitor.''
    As an illustration of this deficiency, open Microsoft Access 
2000 Help and perform a search for the SUM function. One obtains a 
list of 137 references, none of which describe the SUM function. Or 
do a search for the COUNT function. One obtains a list of 320 
references, none of which to the author/Es knowledge describes the 
COUNT function. The carton containing Microsoft Office 2000 states 
that the system requirements for running under Windows 95 or 98 are 
a PC with Pentium 75 MHz processor and 16 MB of RAM for the 
operating system, plus an additional 4 MB of RAM running 
simultaneously (8 MB for Outlook or Access). This is a considerable 
understatement.
    Complicating the performance issue was using WinProxy, a program 
from Ositis Products, which allowed all the church computers to 
simultaneously share a single dial-up connection to the Internet. It 
was realized that WinProxy was causing a significant traffic load on 
the local area network only after the church switched to a cable 
modem for accessing the Internet. The author has been unable to 
discover the reason behind this disruptive behavior. The author has 
estimated that the performance of Microsoft Access 2000 over a local 
area network is approximately ten percent the performance of the 
same database running within Microsoft Access 2.0.
    Please refer to the following two articles within Microsoft/Es 
Knowledge Base (the first relates to Microsoft Access 2000 and the 
second to Microsoft Access 97):
    HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q208364'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q208364
    HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q 155077'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q 155077 Please refer to the following 
article within Microsoft/Es Knowledge Base:
    HYPERLINK ``http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q260819'' http://support.microsoft.com/
default.aspx'scid=kb;en-us;q260819
    Based upon private communications with Mike Gunderloy, author of 
the Smart Access article mentioned in the first footnote, and Peter 
Vogel, editor of Smart Access (http://
www.smartaccessnewsletter.com). The SendObject code module does not 
work on the church/Es computers when running Microsoft Outlook 
Express, only when running Microsoft Outlook. More importantly, the 
code module does work on the church/Es server that is running 
Microsoft Windows 2000, only on the other computers running 
Microsoft Windows 98.
    The two development tools are Speed Ferret by Black Moshannon 
Systems (a global find and replace utility for all objects and code 
within the database) and Total Access Analyzer by FMS (a database 
analysis and documentation utility). Since the developers of these 
tools just released their Microsoft Access 2000 versions, support of 
Microsoft Access 2002 will probably not be available in the near 
future.
    Microsoft Access 2.0 was shipped with two technical manuals 
thereby giving complete documentation on how to use the product. 
Microsoft ships the Office XP product with little documentation. 
This is a fundamental flaw. Preparing documentation on any product 
is an excellent method for checking the logic and usability of a 
product. The author through his Microsoft Access database 
development activities has stumbled on many problems in support of 
these observations. Only a limited number have been documented in 
this paper to illustrate the problems.



MTC-00011264--0004

    The church publishes a roster of members that contains a 
subreport listing the e-mail addresses of the members. This 
subreport is printed in two-column format like a phone book (names 
are listed alphabetically starting in the first column and then 
continuing in the second column). This formatting works within 
Microsoft Access 2.0 but does not work in Microsoft Access 2000. 
Furthermore, this formatting does not work in Microsoft Access 97. 
Microsoft suggests the following resolution to this problem:
    ``To work around this behavior, follow these steps: (1) Open the 
subreport in Design view. (2) On the File menu, click Page Setup. 
(3) Click the Columns tab. (4) Under Column Layout, click Across, 
then Down.'' This is not a work around! This is an entirely 
different column layout, one that is not appropriate for a 
telephone-book type of listing. Has this problem been corrected in 
Microsoft Access 2002? Probably not is the author/Es guess.
    August 23, 2000
    To: Microsoft Freedom to Innovate Network
    (HYPERLINK ``mailto:[email protected]'' [email protected])
    Dear Microsoft,
    Please stop your style of innovating! Your customers cannot 
continue to absorb the significant costs to their computer systems 
caused by your type of innovation.
    Since purchasing Microsoft Office 2000, I had to purchase a new 
sophisticated computer system just to run Access 2000 (Access 2.0 
and Access 97 run perfectly well


on my old computer system). My church, using a Microsoft Access 2.0 
database that I wrote, will have to endure the cost of replacing or 
upgrading their existing computer systems in order to run a 
Microsoft Access 2000 version of the database.
    Bill Gates and others at Microsoft do not seem to have the 
perspective to appreciate the problems they have caused. From what I 
have read about the ruling in the antitrust suit against you, Judge 
Thomas Jackson appears to understand and appreciate the problems 
your style of innovating has imposed upon your customers, even 
though he is has minimum expertise in computer science.
    And compounding the issue, Microsoft Access 2000 is barely 
usable from a programming perspective.
    Microsoft Access 2.0 is one of the finest programs I have ever 
used (and its help screens are unmatched by any other program). 
Microsoft Access 2000 is one of the worst. Please stop your style of 
innovating!
    Regards, Roy C. Dixon



MTC-00011264-0005



MTC-00011265

From: Chengxia You
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:59am
Subject: The Microsoft case
    The Microsoft case should be settled. The provisions of the 
agreement are reasonable and fair. The settlement should be good for 
the American economy and all parties.
    Chengxia You, FNAI, Florida State University
    1018 Thomasville Road, Suite 200-C
    Tallahassee, Florida 32312, USA
    Tel: 850/224-8207 ex 219
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00011266

FROM: Dennis Whittaker
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/15/02 9:20am
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Whittaker
34 Jewett Hill, Berkshire, NY 13736
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice
950 Penna. Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in support of the settlement with Microsoft. The 
changes it requires will restore fair competition and prevent future 
antitrust violations.
    Microsoft has agreed to release the interfaces that make Windows 
work with software applications to competitors, meaning that other 
companies can figure out how to better write programs for Windows. 
Naturally, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that take 
advantage of this new information. Plus, Microsoft has agreed not to 
enter into any agreements that force third parties to distribute any 
Windows technology exclusively. Clearly, these restrictions will 
benefit the consumers as well as the technology sector as a whole.
    This settlement is in the best interests of the State of New 
York, The U.S., and the 


[[Page 25437]]


economy because it will stop any 
anticompetitive behavior before it starts. Continued litigation 
against Microsoft will put millions of dollars into a case that has 
already seen a fair and reasonable end. Let the IT industry 
concentrate on busines as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Whittaker



MTC-00011267

From: James Sweetman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the government 
does nothing to deter this arrogant behemoth from continuing to 
bully the rest of the industry into doing its bidding. Microsoft has 
a monopoly on the operating system level, and continues to illegally 
extend this monopoly by requiring users to purchase unwanted 
features. The settlement does nothing to address this, and will only 
encourage Microsoft to continue its illegal acts.
    James Sweetman
    Arlington, VA



MTC-00011268

From: Seacrist, Ben
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Morning
    I read somewhere that you all are looking for opinions on the 
case involving Microsoft. If that is not the case please forgive me 
for wasting your time with this e-mail.
    If it is the case, then I'd like to voice my opinion. 
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Windows OS. My 98 crashes way 
too often and XP is a joke (Windows 2000 saves the day, though, so I 
am not totally anti-Windows). That being said however, I think 
Microsoft being sued on anti-trust grounds is ridiculous. If the 
Windows OS has a big share of the market, it's because it markets 
its products better. Apple was doing years before what Windows does 
now. However, thanks to Apple's not-so-savvy marketing and its 
insistence on proprietary hardware (i.e. no Apple ``clones''), they 
were not able to get a big chunk of the market. Enter IBM and its 
slew of ``clones'', most using MS-DOS. Microsoft had a better market 
saturation because it aligned itself with IBM, which allowed other 
companies to mimic its hardware, meaning more people came in contact 
with MS products. That's not Microsoft's fault. Heck, that's 
capitalism pure and simple. To make Microsoft pay because it used 
business sense while its competitors did not goes against the grain 
of our system. Don't punish them because of our companies' 
shortsightedness. Also, I've heard a lot of complaining about 
Windows being shipped with Internet Explorer and that that was 
unfair to other browser companies because it gave MS an unfair 
advantage. Rubbish. I only recently started using IE on machine at 
home and at work and only did that because Netscape kept crashing. 
Windows does not force anyone to use Internet Explorer.
    Thanks for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ben
    Bennett P. Seacrist--EDS @ Detroit Diesel Corporation
    13400 W. Outer Drive
    Detroit, MI 48239
    United States of America
    Telephone/Telefon: (+001 313) 592.5189
    Facsimile/Telefax: (+001 313) 592.7430
    E-mail (EDS): [email protected]
    mailto:[email protected]>
    E-mail (DDC): bennett.seacrist@ detroitdiesel.com
    mailto:bennett.seacrist@ detroitdiesel.com>



MTC-00011269

From: Wallis J Morgan Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a small businessperson involved in the specification and 
development of computer software for businesses of all sizes, on a 
regular basis I find the need to integrate solutions utilizing 
software from a variety of vendors, including Microsoft. Because of 
this I've found that solutions from Microsoft's competitors are 
evaluated and selected just as often as those from Microsoft, at 
least by the customers I support.
    Although I have disagreed with the antitrust suit from the 
beginning, I support Microsoft's position on the settlement, believe 
it is fair and good for all involved.
    Regards,
    Wallis J Morgan Jr
    databaseinternals
    432 Glenmeade Court
    Gretna, LA 70056
    (504)296-4944 Voice
    (504)392-3156 Fax



MTC-00011270

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    The Microsoft case is over, as far as the federal government is 
concerned, and thank heaven for that. The national economy has 
suffered enough, and its driving engine, the high tech industry, has 
not been helped by the fact that one of its leading competitors has 
been dragged into court for more than three years by the Justice 
Department.
    The settlement's provisions protect Microsoft's freedom to 
innovate its products and will hopefully lead to a new era of 
revitalized competition in the software market and other areas of 
the technology economy. Consumers and investors will both benefit 
from this settlement, and hopefully, it will be the last time the 
government interferes with the high tech economy.
    Allynn Howe
    11005 Sweetmeadow Drive
    Oakton, VA 22124
    703-798-5627



MTC-00011271

From: Doyle E. Whitten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this settled. Although some Microsoft programs 
irritate me, nothing justifies the way Janet Reno and her justice


department went after Microsoft. What can be done to force the rest 
of the states to agree to the settlement so we can get this over. I 
do not like my tax dollars being spent to prosecute a lawsuit 
against a company. It is time to get this over.
    Doyle Whitten,
    O'Fallon, Mo.



MTC-00011272

From: Terrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement comments
Date: 11/22/01  
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. Microsoft has been proven before the law to have 
abused its monopoly powers and needs to be punished for that and 
effective rules must be put in place to restore competition in the 
marketplace. The recently publicized settlement does neither. Healty 
competition, innovation, and consumer choice are ESSENTIAL to the 
high-tech economy. The way I interpret the settlement it is full of 
holes and will not stop Microsoft from steamrolling the competition 
with unfair business practices and does nothing to prevent Microsoft 
from gauging consumers for years to come.
    In particular:
    --Microsoft must be prohibited from engaging in excluse and 
semi-exclusive agreements with any parties for any time period.
    --Microsoft must not be allowed to provide financial or other 
incentives to other parties for favoring Microsofts products over a 
competitors product.
    --Microsoft must not be allowed to bundle or cross-license its 
products in any way.
    --Microsoft must make public the programming interfaces to all 
of its major products to allow competitors to implement meaningful 
interoperability with Microsoft's products. Also, Microsoft must 
notify all interested parties well in advance before it decides to 
change any such interfaces and must make these changes available.
    --Microsoft must be prohibited from breaking public technology 
standards by adding proprietary and incompatible features to such 
standards and then bundling this proprietary technology into 
hundreds of millions of Windows platforms, thus creating a de-facto 
standard that overrides the existing public standard.
    No exemptions or loopholes can be allowed for the above rules if 
meaningful relief is to be achieved.
    I urge the court to understand the impact Microsoft's past 
behavior has had on the high-tech marketplace. If Microsoft's 
ruthless business practices continue unchecked the American economy 
will pay an enormous penalty in the long run.
    Microsoft should compete as much as it wants, but it must stop 
doing so in an unfair manner. The proposed settlement does not 
guarantee this in any way.
    Sincerely,
    Terrence Barr
    20875 Valley Green Dr #27



[[Page 25438]]


    Cupertino, CA 95014



MTC-00011273

FROM: Renee
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/15/02 9:44am
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to voice my concern on the recent events behind the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. I am against any further government 
action. What I do not understand is the punishing of Microsoft for 
producing a quality product. Under our system of free enterprise, we 
are free to purchase and use any computer products we wish. It just 
so happens that Microsoft has created far better products than other 
competing companies have been able to.
    Can you imagine that use of the Internet by ordinary citizens 
would have been possible without a common platform for 
communications? In addition to the superior software Microsoft has 
created, the company has created a niche in the marketplace that in 
the past decade has brought a huge amount of growth to our economy, 
not to mention the standardization of computer software programs 
that have allowed computerization to become part of everyday life.
    As an investment portfolio manager, I represent clients who have 
invested hard-earned savings into American companies like Microsoft 
whose financial success benefitted ordinary Americans willing to 
invest in these companies. The additional litigation risk to 
shareholders has risen dramatically in this country as tort lawyers, 
including state Attorneys General, seek deep corporate pockets. It 
is no coincidence that the peak in our financial markets coincided 
with the Justice Department's announcement in March 3000 that it 
would seek to break up Microsoft.
    Microsoft has agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights 
to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs. 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it 
easier for non-Microsoft software to be installed within Windows, 
and Microsoft has even agreed to a technical committee to monitor 
future compliance. I doubt if other firms would do as much. It is 
shameful that companies like Microsoft should be punished for their 
success-whatever happened to the American dream? I urge you to 
support this settlement.
    Sincerely, Renee' M. Smith
    Sincerely,
    Renee Smith



MTC-00011274

From: Greg HEck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern, as a long time user of Windows I feel as 
a consumer I have been harmed by Microsoft's unlawful practices. As 
they stem rolled or bought and abandoned technologies that I wanted 
or needed these technologies just disappeared or ``evolved'' into 
products from Microsoft that were less useful than the original 
product. As I have been time and time again frustrated by Microsoft 
and their practices I strongly urge you to prosecute Microsoft to 
the full extent of the law.
    Thank you
    Greg Heck



MTC-00011275

From: R. Easley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsfot
    I think enough of the taxpayers money has been spent on trying 
to punish Microsoft for being successful!
    The economic downturn started about the time DOJ jumped into 
Microsofts case?
    And by the way, where was DOJ when ENRON was stealing from just 
about everyone?
    Best get your priorities right
    R.V. Easley
    PO box 54
    Loon Lake, WA 99148
    509-233-2950



MTC-00011276

From: Mark McKay
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the case and am dismayed that the 
settlement does not go far enough. It does not address Microsoft 
leveraging it's monopoly to severely damage other web browser 
manufacturers (such as netscape), nor it's attempt to destroy the 
Java programming language. The settlement leaves the door wide open 
for Microsoft to continue to use technical nasty tricks embedded in 
it's operating system and closed protocols that do nothing but make 
it more difficult for non-Microsoft companies to compete.
    I would encourage the plantiffs in this case to reconsider and 
leverage more effective and severe penalties against Microsoft.
    Mark McKay



MTC-00011277

From: Barry Baumbaugh
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Baumbaugh
12032 Timberline Trace North
Granger, IN 46530
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.


    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barry Baumbaugh



MTC-00011278

From: artsieber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The remedy should some how benefit the people that are damaged. 
The consumer is the injured party. How about making Microsoft 
provide free 800 number tech support for all past and present 
windows users. A lot of tech companies that still have compition 
offer this. I as a consumer never ever buy hardware or software that 
does not offer free tech support by phone. Except of course 
Microsoft products cause I DO NOT HAVE ANY CHOICE.



MTC-00011279

From: David F. Schreck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:12am
Subject: Public Comment on Antitrust Settlement with Microsoft
    I feel that it is in the best interest of all parties to settle 
this suit now.
    Thanks, Dave



MTC-00011280

From: Micheal Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Though it would never happen, it sure would be nice to have at 
least a semblance of choice in the OS market.
    I would love to use an IBM version of XP, heh. Even an AOL 
version, Compaq, HP, any first to third tier manufacturer would be 
able to license Windows to make their own version. Microsoft would 
still make money on licensing fee's, still have over site control of 
the standards, and we would at least be able to honestly pretend to 
have a choice in OS's.
    Micheal Anderson
    Edge Computer Games
    1245 Woodmere Ave.
    Traverse City, MI. 49686
    231-932-4263 voice 231-932-2441 fax
    http://www.edgecomputergames.com



MTC-00011281

From: Howard Peterson
To: Microsoft ATR



[[Page 25439]]


Date: 1/15/02  10:23am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I REALLY THINK ITS A DISGRACE, HOW MICROSOFT HAS BEEN HOUNDED, 
BULLIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IF THEY HAD PUT AS MUCH EFFORT 
INTO FIGHTING TERRORISM, THE WORLD TRADE DISASTER MAY HAVE NOT 
HAPPENED. THE SETTLEMENT REACHED BY THE MICROSOFT AND THE GOVERNMENT 
WAS ``OVERLY'' GENEROUS. ITS JUST PLAIN GREED AND POLITICS NOW, FOR 
ANYONE PURSUING ANYMORE FROM MICROSOFT. ITS MICROSOFT'S ``SOUR 
GRAPE'' COMPETATERS WHO ARE PURSUING THIS OUTRAGE.
    HOWARD C. PETERSON
    907 VANCE ST N
    WILSON, NC 27893-2917
    252-237-1228



MTC-00011282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am transmitting the attached letter which contains my views 
regarding the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Robert P. Simpson
    10 Portage Place
    Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130
    January 14, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to ask that you settle the Justice Department's 
lawsuit against Microsoft after this comment period. The case has 
dragged on with absolutely no favorable results. It is time to put 
the matter to rest.
    I know firsthand that the Justice Department's action against 
the company affects more than the company itself. It affects the 
entire technology sector. Ending the antitrust case under the terms 
of the settlement seems like the best way to resolve the matter 
quickly and to everyone's approval. The settlement is fair, and 
enforceable. It rearranges the way Microsoft does business in 
virtually every aspect, from engineering and design to licensure and 
marketing. Any continued action against Microsoft will unfairly 
impede their progress and ability to continue developing innovative 
technology. Please end the case as soon as possible.
    Thank you for considering my views on this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Simpson



MTC-00011283

From: Jim McGurrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:21am
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 competition for Microsoft at all--it is in the open 
source world, specifically linux. Microsoft is fully aware of this 
and the DOJ is not playing their oversight role if language such as 
this is left in the settlement.
    As a side note, it is naive to allow Microsoft to extend their 
monopoly by allowing, as a ``remedy'', the putting of their software 
in our school systems for 5 years. This will damage Apple and others 
and not Microsoft at all, and it is not doing those school systems 
or the kids any where near the good spending that same level of 
money on other technologies (ie open source). Take a hard look at 
RedHat's counter proposal to provide ALL school systems the software 
and support.
    Please take do not rush to ``clear'' this case in an effort to 
``jump start'' the tech sector with a pro-microsoft remedy. This is 
a crucial time in our industry and decisions here will set the 
direction of our industry (stagnant monopoly dominated or vibrant 
competitive diversity) for the next ten years at least, and like 
dog-years, ten tech years are like 70 normal years in terms of the 
effect on economy wide productivity growth.
    If allowed to compete on a level playing field, Linux is a 
viable competitor to Microsoft, 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.
    Thank-you



MTC-00011284

From: Carol Hemmen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Attention: Renate B. Hesse
    My comment is this---This settlement should have ended a long 
time ago. It it weren't for the Attorney Generals of seven states-
one of which I am sad to say that I am a resident of- continually 
wanting to bring charges against Microsoft, it would have been 
settled. I do not know what these ``seven'' think they will 
accomplish. What is wrong with competition?
    It sounds more like a vendetta than anything else. Money spent 
in court with charges against Microsoft could be spent in so many 
better ways. Accept what Microsoft has offered and get on with life.
    Carol Hemmen--An Iowa resident.



MTC-00011285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The suit against Microsoft should be dropped outright by the 
Federal Government. It was instituted by the previous administration 
in Washington as repayment for campaign contributions given by AOL,


Oracle, at that time, Netscape and others. There is not now and 
there never has been a monopoly in operating systems. People who buy 
computers are free to install any operating system they wish or to 
buy a computer with the system preinstalled. Preference does not 
make a monopoly.
    Technology in recent years has been a blessing for this country 
and due to companies such as Microsoft we have been on the leading 
edge. Are there people in Washington who would prefer that in 
addition to most computers being manufactured in Red China the 
operating systems should also be? I think the downturn in the NASDAQ 
is directly related to the Microsoft suit and should serve as a shot 
across our bow.



MTC-00011286

From: wgstelenet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
American Outback
N 43.7 W 74.916
Box 270 South Shore Road
Old Forge, NY 13420-0270
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement with 
Microsoft. The settlement is in the best interests of the state, the 
American IT industry, and the economy. The recession has had a 
devastating effect on state budgets and the Federal budget. It is 
important that the technology industry be allowed to concentrate on 
business now.
    The settlement imposes a broad series of restrictions on 
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. Also, Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers on 
identical terms, including price. In addition, Microsoft has agreed 
to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows' operating system products--
a first in an antitrust settlement. This agreement will clearly 
benefit both consumers and the American IT industry as a whole. This 
settlement is both fair and reasonable, and it will prevent future 
anticompetitive behavior. The sooner the technology sector gets back 
to business as usual, the better. Wasting more time and money on 
further litigation is a bad idea.
    Thank you for your kind attention.
    Sincere regards,
    W. Shaw



MTC-00011288

From: Kris Bredemeyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is a setback towards fostering 
competition in the marketplace. Microsoft has used its monopoly 
powers to leverage licensing terms 



[[Page 25440]]


on its customers that are punitive towards users.
    The Windows product activation system is a violation of users 
right to privacy as a hash of users computer systems is sent to 
Microsoft. This is the most abusive company to its competitors I 
have ever seen and because of its monopoly powers it has been able 
to engage in such conduct unchecked. The only effective way to 
combat this problem is to split the Microsoft corporation into an 
operating system company, an office and other software company, and 
an internet company.



MTC-00011289

From: ray winn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen I believe strongly that the Microsoft 
Settlement be rendered as quickly as possible.
    Further litigation will create continued deterioration for all 
concerned, and most importantly the American public. Let's please 
get our total focus on rebuilding the economic foundation of our 
country instead of to weaken it further. A possible first step might 
be a self introspection by the DOJ. Thank You, Ray Winn



MTC-00011290

From: margaret jarrard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:48am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In the interest of the public, people like me, settle the 
Microsoft issue as soon as possible. I would like to remind you that 
big business and big government is not the people, although they 
claim to have our interests at heart. There is just too much 
politics in the Microsoft settlement issue and I see no reason to 
prolong the settlement. Our economy as well as everyday folks will 
benefit most from the settlement of the current agreement. Thanks 
for your diligence. Margaret Jarrard



MTC-00011291

From: Antworks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposal settlement for Microsoft's transgressions would 
seem to be self-serving and, if implemented, would bring about an 
unanticipated result. The better settlement would be for Microsoft 
to provide the designated funding to the schools and to permit the 
schools to make the determination as to which equipment best meets 
their needs.
    Richard McMains
    4180 S. Ranch Road
    Sierra Vista, AZ 85650



MTC-00011292

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:51am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitust case is 
plainly no more than a slap on the wrist and a reprimand to ``play 
nice''. Mr Gates wont be losing any sleep over this judgement as it 
is nothing more than an inconvenience in his journey to dominate the 
software market to an extent where there is no option on which 
operating system to use for a computer system.
    I feel this whole case will have been a complete waste of the 
taxpayers money.



MTC-00011293

From: Johnson, William
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Fails to include other Microsoft software products such as 
Micorsoft Office which regularly uses interfaces (APIs) that are not 
provided to other developers of Office products. While Micorsoft 
Office is not technically a middleware program, the judgement should 
be expanded to include all Micorosoft software products that have 
inteface access that either is not available to non-Microsoft 
software deveopers or is made available after the last beta of a new 
version of the Windows operating system
    Fails to provide any remedy (fines that double in size on every 
reoccurance of the same problem and increase in size by 50% for each 
month after 90 days that Micorsoft fails to provide a solution to 
any single problem/short term incarceration for the group leader or 
any higher Microsoft officer who either verbally, or via e-mail or 
written note tells a product group to do something that violates any 
reported compliant that the TC determines is meritorious or any TC 
proposal for a cure on a date that is one week or later than the TC 
reported its finding to the Micorsoft Compliance officer) should 
such a failure be found again in the future!
    Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that Microsoft 
was found to have illegally protected. It also fails to provide any 
remedy like fines paid by Microsoft that are given to the company 
that documents a case against Microsoft. Microsoft should also have 
to reemburse the company for all documented expenses related to 
collecting, preparing and reporting the compliant that are 
reasonable and not deemed excessive by a court apppointed 
arbitrator.
    Fails to force Bill Gates and the current CEO of Microsoft who 
both are billionares due to their creation of a monopoly to pay any 
fines. At a minimum, they should personally be forced to reimburse 
the federal government and all state governemnts for their costs in 
this case. In addition, punative damages should be paid to a fund 
that could be used to provide seed money to software developers who 
wish to enter the market. This would be a significant step in 
addressing the barriers that Micorsoft created in the past.
    Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community. Microsoft should be forced to provide a mechanism like 
the Control Panel Add/Remove program that makes it easy for 
customers to add the latest Java Virtual Machine and Browser plug in 
to any and all Windows Operating Systems. In addition Microsoft 
should be forced to provide to the Java developement community any 
additional interfaces that are provided to any middleware or other 
Microsoft product in such a fashion that the Java Community


deems is necessary to make Java use of the interface efficient. As 
an example, DCOM works best with C++ or C# or .Net. It has data 
types that are not easily mapped into Java Objects/types. Thus we as 
a software developement company were forced to purchase a product 
from JIntegra that wrapped our C++ data structures with Java code. 
Even after purchasing JIntegra, the effort was so difficult that we 
paid the JIntegra company to provide one of their software experts 
to assist in the work. Even with the help of the expert, we had to 
rewrite our C++ code to use simpler data strctures than the original 
code. Even now, we are limited to the set of types that the JIntegra 
expert successfully wrapped. This extra barrier to Java developers 
who want to use DCOM to communicate to a C++ DLL that runs on a 
remote server needs to be eliminated. Microsoft should be fined 
every month after 90 days that it fails to provide a solution or at 
least provide a team of twelve developers who at Microsoft expense 
are dedicated to working with the Java developement community to 
eliminate this barrier and any additional barriers reported to the 
Java development community by members of the community.
    Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to 
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market. Why is their 
no fine paid by Microsoft to the court and then paid by the court to 
Netscape? Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of 
middleware programs including browsers, media players, and instant 
messaging software into the monopoly Windows operating system.
    Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because it 
lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.



MTC-00011294

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Clearly great care effort and energy is the hallmark of the last 
year of this issue. As it should be: a new technology in a new time. 
However it s time to move on: let Microsoft return full focus to its 
entrepeneurial roots--for shared collaborative benefit--from schools 
to our economy.



MTC-00011295

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs Please do not allow the criminals running Microsoft to 
continue to illegally bilk consumers and use their ill gotten gains 
to quash any legitimate competition. The settlement should cost 
Microsoft at least $10 billion real dollars and prevent them from 
quashing competition in the future. JDR



MTC-00011296

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I send this note in the hope that the government s case against 
Microsoft will be closed with not further action. I do not 


[[Page 25441]]


believe action should have been taken in the first place 
and certainly no further action should be taken at this time.



MTC-00011297

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the government interfereing with the 
innovations of a company just because their competitors believe it 
is unfair. The lawsuit against microsoft becuase some people think 
they are charging too much for software is rediculous. If you 
compare the cost of products and/or services from other software/
service vendors you will see that Microsoft is right inline with 
market standards. The complaint of competitors that Microsoft ties 
or bundles software with and operating system is simply laughable. 
Since when does a consumer complain when they get a free add-on for 
a product they purchased. It is like saying that a car manufacturer 
cannot install Goodyear tires on a car because maybe a consumer will 
not want them. If you dont want to use the feature then dont. AOL I 
believe is more guilty of poor software than any other vendor I know 
of.



MTC-00011298

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is more than fair for 
all involved. Please let s settle this in move on.
    Peter Holland



MTC-00011299

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The previous administration made a grave error of listening to 
Microsoft s competitors who wished to KNOCK MICROSOFT S SOX OFF . 
Unfortunately not only did the government s decision to HIT 
MICROSOFT WITH A STIFF PENALITY bring down Microsoft s stock but it 
crumbled the entire Tech Market. NM is a Democrat state and WE THE 
PEOPLE had to voice in NM s decision to side with the Government in 
slamming Microsoft. A few top Democrats in this state made that 
decision ! MY REQUEST FOR YOU IS TO MAKE A QUICK SETTLEMENT WITH 
MICROSOFT ONE IN WHICH MICROSOFT CAN AGREE. My news media tells me 
that Microsoft has offered $1 000 000.00 for computers to be placed 
in POOR schools. Again Microsoft s competitors are screaming unfair 
. If their products were as good as Microsoft s they wouldn t have 
to CRUSH private enterprise. After all America was built on THE 
ENTREPRENEUR making good in private industry.



MTC-00011300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the head of a company that started out selling IBM s OS/2 I 
know for a FACT that the emergience of Windows in the OS wars was 
due to the terrible performance of IBM s marketing department and 
its treatment of ISVs. IBM s attempt to dominate the PC marketplace 
was far far more egregious than what MSFT did and once again I know 
I was there in the thick of that war . We are nhot even talking 
about Apple which tried to own the whole space of desktop computing 
by owning both the hardware and the solftware. I shake my head when 
I see who is doing the complaining against Microsoft! With regard to 
its supposed Monopoli today we as resellers are only too acutely 
ware of how tenous the grip of any technology is on a marketplace 
especially Microsoft s whose reputation is constantly being 
threatened by reports of bugs and other attackcs. I firmly believe 
that a new technology could easily displace a Microsoft technology 
either in the OS or in the applications arena. Microsoft s success 
is due to its pleasing of the customer and the channel. While I did 
not believe that Microsoft should have ever even been charged by the 
Department of Justice (for which I once worked) I most strongly urge 
anyone there to take into consideration my experience and views and 
approve the settlement that has been proposed.
    Paolo



MTC-00011301

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I Think its a Fair Deal for all. I am for the settlement the way 
it is. 1-14-02



MTC-00011302

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is fair and equitable as it stands.



MTC-00011303

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support Microsofts resolution to the Anti-Trust case of 
providing technology to schools. Taking Microsoft back to court and 
paying judgements to customers (which will amount to a pittance) 
benefits only lawyers.



MTC-00011304

From: peter.heinen@homestreet bank.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is more than fair. To my knowledge no one 
has shown any harm to the consumer.
    This whole law suit is a sham. The public is not even behind it. 
Who is? SUN Oracle!



MTC-00011305

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the sake of technology and the US economy please make the 
remaining states


come to an agreement with Microsoft. I feel that these lawyers are 
going for the money just like they did when they targeted big 
tobacco. Microsoft has done a lof of good for technology and we all 
know that Microsoft has done a lot of good for the economy. With the 
events of Sept. 11th I would think that the government would be more 
interested in getting the economy up and running again instead of 
this relentless pursuit of Microsoft and its billions!



MTC-00011306

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The politically motivated attack on Microsoft has probably done 
more to damage the technology sector of the stock market than any 
other event. Competetors of Microsoft are angry because they 
actually have to produce a superior product in order to stay in 
business. There are very few end users of Microsoft that are anxious 
to see the company damaged. Who is the government trying to protect? 
End users or competitors? Dr. Charles Ivie Director R&D Dermaprobe 
International



MTC-00011307

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please urge the dissenting states to give up the assault on 
Microsoft. They should be thankful for the agreement to the 
settlement by a company whose violations are unclear at best.



MTC-00011308

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    msft stick to your guns & keep your powder dry.



MTC-00011309

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP HARRASING MICROSOFT AND OTHER BUSINESS. 
THE PEOPLES NEEDS ARE NOT BEING ATTENDED TO WHEN LEGISLATER ARE 
HOLDING HEARINGS THAT ARE A WASTE OF TIME. MICROSOFT AS WELL AS 
OTHER BUSINESS S OFFER A PRODUCT PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT.



MTC-00011310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already-Stop the insanity! The settlement while not 
perfect should be agreed upon. I am the Public and I will decide 
what is in my good .



MTC-00011311

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


[[Page 25442]]



Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The law suit against Microsoft has done enough damage. For the 
good of all Americans please do not pursue this issue any further.



MTC-00011313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Abolish the Sherman anti-trust Act as it is unconstitutional and 
un-American. Allow the consumer to deal with the likes of Microsoft.



MTC-00011314

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settling this ongoing series of lawsuits is in the best interest 
of the country and the free enterprise system. The economy will 
benefit from concluding this suit.



MTC-00011315

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case is a simple matter of some less than 
successful businessmen and marketers going crying to Congress who 
being equally inept started an anti-trust suit. Being big and 
successful is NOT a monopoly. The consumer decides what to buy and 
if the product is so much better than any competition then the 
product succeeds. Nobody not Microsoft nobody FORCED anybody to do 
anything. The OEM s had an option other software and PC makers 
failed to compete so they went crying for help and the Congress in 
it s infinite stupidity obliged them. The settlement is not fair 
because it never should have come to this in the first place. But 
given the fact that the age of litigation being what it is this is 
the best a true free spirit and entrepreneur can hope for. Without 
Bill Gates and the Microsoft enterprise the computer world and 
millions of jobs would NOT be around today or at least be years 
behind where we are now. Why do so many people and the Congrees 
resent free success??



MTC-00011316

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While one one hand I am pleased that this anti-trust case is 
finally over with but on the other hand I am very disappointed in 
the actions of the government of this country. In my opinion the 
software playing field has always been more than fair. Microsoft is 
more or less being punished for putting out a consistently and above 
average product. Isn t this supposed to be meaning of capitalism or 
what is known as the American way? You manufacture a good product 
and it sells. You manufacture a product of poor or below average 
quality and you will not be able to compete with the companies who 
manufacture the higher quality software. The founders of this once 
great country of ours would without a doubt wonder what has happened 
to the once fair and impartial government of which they had formed 
and had dreamed of not so long ago. A company which has done so much 
for the American economy and made it the home of high tech jogs gets 
a kick in the teeth by it s own government. The future of the 
Microsoft company will most likely end up like the automobile 
industry and move it s headquarters overseas and I couldn t say that 
I would blame them if they did. This whole anti-trust case has been 
an embarrasment to this country and what it used to stand for.



MTC-00011317

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The action against Microsoft is a crime against free enterprise. 
No settlement can erase the shame and sham that the US Govt has 
forced on the American consumer. You took a few nearly failing and 
crybaby businesses and presumed to use them as an excuse to speak 
for the consumer when in fact very few consumers feel that a 
successful free enterprise albeit quite large business is a 
monopoly. You have over stepped and abused your power and should be 
ashamed.



MTC-00011318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has always strived to make my job as a programmer 
easier throughout my career. This company doesn t deserve the 
treatment it is getting from the government and its jealous 
competitors. The settlement that has been reached should be accepted 
and Microsoft should be left alone to continue innovating and making 
computers users lives easier. Where would we be today without 
Microsoft s contributions? Most likely still in the computer dark 
ages.



MTC-00011319

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If the Federal Government and the Microsoft Corp. have reached 
an agreement then why should the States keep this dreary affair 
going on and on? Let s get back to business and bring this economy 
back to a strong growth rate.



MTC-00011320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Time to back off Microsoft and let them go about the business of 
makeing mony for there stock holders.



MTC-00011321

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement


    Nearly three years ago I wrote you a letter protesting the 
unwarranted intrusion of the DOJ into the competitive free 
enterprise system. The DOJ has cost the American tax payors tens of 
millions in its frivilous legal action. It is now time to terminate 
litigation and allow the settlement to go forward without further 
delay. Thank you.



MTC-00011322

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir: The action against Microsoft has gone on long 
enough.It is taking tax payers money and the copmpany is being 
persecuted. They have bent over backwards to be fair to all parties. 
Now stop the greediness of those opposed to settlement. Since this 
suit has taken place the economy has suffered before 911.
    Sincerely
    Theresa A. Taylor



MTC-00011323

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I guess this settlement is the best that we can hope for. There 
is no way that Justice Department should have initiated this silly 
innovation- and economy-squashing suit in the first place. Can we 
now at least please drop the matter and get on with letting the real 
engines of progress take their rightful positions of leadership in 
the world? Please?



MTC-00011324

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement. I watched the government waste 
millions & I mean millions of $ s on the IBM case. It s a hellofa 
price to pay for all round excellence



MTC-00011325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is a sad day when you build a better mouse trap and the mice 
get the government to sue you for it. If they can t handle the 
competition let them stay out of the business Jack Thompson



MTC-00011326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I guess I just do not understand the statement by the Judge 
saying the Microsoft requested settlement would cause a competitive 
edge for them. Apple has had the competitive edge with education and 
printing for years. Their equipment is VERY expensive. The attorneys 
for the states that are holding out on the Microsoft settlement are 
the states with companys that have their business or sattelites in 
those state. It appears the attorneys for these states have 
successfully convinced the judge to throw 


[[Page 25443]]


out the proposed 
settlement. A totally political move. I would very much like to have 
someone explain to me why AOL/Time Warner is NOT a MONOPOLY. And 
prove to me that this lawsuit is NOT political.
    Please respond. Thank you for the opportunity to express my 
thoughts. Gerald Dentz



MTC-00011327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and stop harrassing the best US 
corporation. These delays will cost us all money and allow the rest 
of the world to catch up. We should be supporting Microsoft as the 
whole world relies on their great software.



MTC-00011328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They have provided many jobs and 
technology to our nation also helping schools and many various 
programs. Please end these lawsuits. The lawyers are the ones 
getting rich over this while people are being put out of work 
because of a silly lawsuit. I bet giving a choice 99 percent of the 
people would use Microsoft over any other program. I say it is a 
choice you can use it or not. If you don t like Microsoft don t use 
any of their products but don t sue over it. It is just as simple as 
that. And other companies are just greedy as they didn t have the 
brains like Bill Gates to figure out all of this. I say give the guy 
credit for all he has done and invented. It amazes my mind what he 
has done to make it easy to communicate with the world and to type 
letters without carbon paper and to erase easy.
    And to figure out computer programs. Guess this gives you a clue 
to my age. We have come a long ways thanks to Bill Gates. By keeping 
on with the lawsuits you make it hard for them to innovate so please 
get put an end to the lawsuits.
    Thanks Joyce Siemens



MTC-00011329

From: Hartmann, George J.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a individual I want the Government to settle with Microsoft. 
I therefore support the Department of Justice on its proposed 
antitrust settlement.
    Regards,
    George Hartmann
    CC:Hartmann George J.



MTC-00011330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:55am
Subject: my opinion on the Microsoft Case
    1. Actually, I am tired of it and fairly fed up with the 
procedure that has taken a well-run free trade business and 
practically brought it to its knees. As if it isn't hard enough to 
make a go of a business, the government steps in to slap their hand 
becuase of the belly aching of companies that are jealous of its 
success.
    2. Perhaps Microsoft did create a situation where the 
competition didn't have as good a chance at succeeding, but they 
also did a lot to bring the common housewife like me into the 21st 
century. I am glad there is a Microsoft--and a Bill Gates. He built 
the empire and we came. And we love him for it.
    3. I don't know Bill Gates and he has never heard of me and 
probably the sun will set on me before this thing ends....at this 
rate. Please, let him go back to doing his business so we can ALL 
prosper. Good management--taking care of his employees and giving us 
the tools we need to get our jobs done...isn't that the American 
way?
    4. Some businesses, like Enron, didn't need the Government's 
help to do a miserable job and at getting into a mess. Get the 
Government out of Bill's business and let him finish the work he 
started. Slap his hands just a little if you have to do something, 
but do it and get it over with so we can all go forward.
    5. All of this business with the unfair advantage happened so 
many years ago--in a different business climate. The Government 
should be shaking the man's hand instead of slapping it for doing 
the American dream....and for helping us live the American dream.
    If you wish to reach me for any other comments, my name is
    Alice Van de Water
    1694 San Leandro Lane
    Santa Barbara, CA 93108
    (805) 969-4438
    I am 59 years old and have never personally purchased any 
Microsoft stock. I own 800 shares, which my husband bought in about 
1994 or 1995--he passed away about 3 and a half years ago. I also 
own Microsoft in my Keogh--and I believe another financial advisor 
purchased some for another account I have. Obviously, I want the 
stock to do well, but my comments are from my heart, not from my 
pocketbook.



MTC-00011331

From: Harry Crowell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  10:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please stop this viscious lawsuit. Too many people have suffered 
because of the expensive method of persecution of an enterprising 
young American. My business,as have most of our country and others 
across the entire world,have benefitted greatly because of the great 
work and improvements to the ability to access valuable information 
and store records.
    Please stop this foolish destruction of the principles that made 
America the place it is.



MTC-00011332

From: Cynthia Grossen
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement excerpt from Complaint
    ``5. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against such 
potential competitive


threats, and to extend its operating system monopoly into other 
software markets, Microsoft has engaged in a series of 
anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's conduct includes agreements 
tying other Microsoft software products to Microsoft's Windows 
operating system; exclusionary agreements precluding companies from 
distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of Microsoft's 
software competitors or potential competitors; and exclusionary 
agreements restricting the right of companies to provide services or 
resources to Microsoft's software competitors or potential 
competitors.''
    My biggest problem with ``the way things are now'' is that as it 
stands, I can not buy a computer from a large computer seller, like 
DELL, MICRON, BestBuy, Circuit City, etc without being forced to 
purchase the bundled M$ software; even if I have no interest in 
every utilizing said software.
    Also, it is my understanding that most of these venders are 
prohibited from offering ``dual-boot'' systems as well, as part of 
their OEM license agreement with M$. Which would be a `second-best' 
solution to the above problem, from my standpoint at least. I do 
realize that their are legitimate market concerns as well, such as 
poor customer demand. But I find it difficult to believe that the 
fact that M$ owns the OS market (read monopoly here) doesn't play 
into my concerns in a significant way. I feel that this area is one 
of crucial importance to future remedies. The browser arguments are 
extremely compelling and should definitely play into the settlement. 
But the ``Browser War' is effectively over. M$ won.



MTC-00011333

From: Mary Euyang Shen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get on with it so that we can give the economy a small 
nudge upward.
    Mary Shen



MTC-00011334

From: Rob Alelyunas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings;
    I am a professional software developer very familiar with the 
Microsoft products and strategy, as well as many other software 
platforms such as Java, UNIX, and Internet development. For many of 
us in the software industry, the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
looms as a terrible mistake. Many of the reasons why have been very 
well illuminated by far better communicators than myself, and these 
reasons tend to emphasize the failure of the settlement to address 
the actual abuses and illegal practices that were proven in the 
case. They emphasize that the remedy has no enforcement, and is 
unlikely to stop the proven illegal practices.
    But my concern is the effect that the proposed settlement has 
had upon the software community, and the business community at 
large. That is a chilling effect. New software projects have been 
canceled, software innovation has been put on hold in 


[[Page 25442]]


many cases, 
and new initiatives have trouble getting funding. That is because 
the settlement is a signal that the marketplace won't reward the 
small, energetic innovators such Netscape or Real Media. Companies 
like this, although they have virtually invented and innovated new 
capabilities that enrich our lives, will not be set free to compete 
on an equal footing. The behemoth of Microsoft will be allowed to 
wait for these smaller companies to innovate, then it will bundle 
carbon copies of their products into its operating system, and if 
necessary use other illegal monopoly practices such as punitive 
exclusive relationships with hardware manufacturers.
    I ask you honestly, would anyone want to invest in a small 
innovative software company in this climate? No matter what quality, 
energy, excellence is in the product, there cannot be profitability 
as long as Microsoft is free to illegally compete. Investors and the 
business community are very aware of the Microsoft settlement. And 
it has already had a chilling effect on innovation and investment. 
It has had a chilling effect on the American economy. It is a loud, 
clear signal that discourages investment in small business just as 
it discourages new ventures.
    This is not a good time to be discouraging small business which 
is the growth engine of our economy. Now of all times we need to 
carefully consider the effects of our decisions on the economy. 
There are reasons for the anti-trust laws, and there are reasons to 
enforce them. Amercian business operating under effective anti-trust 
enforcement has created the greatest growth and innovation engine 
the world has ever known. The key is competition, and anti-trust 
laws are the protectors of competition. Let's have the courage to 
enforce the law.
    Rob Alelyunas



MTC-00011335

From: Nicholas Dronen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I make my living as a computer programmer and work with 
Microsoft products every day. I believe the proposed Microsoft 
settlement will not prevent the company from continuing to act as it 
has in the past. The U.S. government has had agreements with 
Microsoft in the past, and they have had little effect. I assert 
that allowing this or that hardware vendor to put such-and-such icon 
on the desktop of a Microsoft operating system does little or 
nothing to prevent the company from using its monopoly of the 
desktop operating system market to insinuate itself in a rather 
forthright way into other markets.
    Moreover, I fail to see how allowing interested parties to 
examine the source code of some Microsoft software will solve this 
problem. At most such a regime will give some well-funded start-up 
companies and successful competitors of Microsoft (that is, those 
firms which can afford to send a software engineer to Redmond to 
spend time reading code) a useful tidbit of information here and 
there. Since the company's positions in its current markets (and 
some future ones as well) have not diminished (rather, they have 
con- tinued to increase market share), it is clear that the company 
now has even less of an incentive to follow antitrust law than it 
did before.
    Whether Microsoft should merely be punished for its role in the 
fate of Netscape Communications, Inc., is debatable. I personally 
think it is irrelevant and that the important matter is to restore 
equity in competition in the computer industry now and into the 
future. The proposed settlement does not ensure this; therefore, it 
should be rejected.
    Kind Regards,
    Nicholas Dronen
    [email protected]
    Computer Programmer
    Boulder, Colorado



MTC-00011336

From: Ella Tidwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:07am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I support President Bush in his desire to settle this lawsuit 
and persecution of Microsoft. Ella Tidwell
    4298 US Highway 641 South
    Hazel, KY 42049



MTC-00011337

From: Jim Fuqua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    The time has come for this case to be settled and now. The axe 
grinders have delayed this long enough.
    Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Jim Fuqua, A 
concerned citizen of the US of A



MTC-00011338

From: Benjamin W. Ritcey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The Remedy section of the proposed Microsoft settlement lets 
Microsoft off far too lightly; what seems like fair and open access 
to Microsoft's APIs, Documentation and Communications Protocols has, 
in fact, a critical loophole--I can put this no better than Robert 
Cringly (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html): 
``...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. `` The business 
climate has changed a bit from the time the Tunney Act was 
introduced--one does not have to pursue a profit in order to be a 
competitor. By excluding not-for-profit organization, the Settlement 
protects Microsoft from their greatest threat, and allows them to 
continue to stifle innovation.
    I urge you to, at the very least, remove these critical 
loopholes.
    Regards,
    Benjamin Ritcey



MTC-00011339

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:16am
Subject: microsoft Microsoft is a monopoly.
    They are not changing their behaviour as witnessed by their new 
Passport and Hailstorm technologies.
    They should be split into OS and Other Software
    Carol McDonald



MTC-00011340

From: sam travis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I for one, cannot believe that the department of JUSTICE is even 
considering letting Micro$oft off the hook so easily! This is the 
company that has lied and misled the courts at every turn! I am 
shocked! Shocked and appalled that a corporation can engage in such 
blatantly monopolistic behavior, and walk away with a comparative 
slap on the wrist. Having been involved with the personal computer 
industry essentially since its' inception, I have been witness to 
the most egregious violations, and would like justice to truly be 
done.



MTC-00011341

From: Tor-Oyvind Gundersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since I'm a Norwegian citizen, I assume I don't have a right to 
comment this case. But I just can't sit still looking at 
injustice... As a professional IT developer, I would just like 


[[Page 25445]]


to say one thing: The way Microsoft has chosen, 
is not a way the world 
should be going-- please get the world back on the right track.
    Thanks for your time.
    Regards,
    Tor-Oyvind Gundersen
    [email protected]



MTC-00011342

From: Harold McClarnon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HAROLD McCLARNON
310 Westwood Drive Grants Pass,
OR 97527
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Thank you for your efforts to settle the Microsoft antitrust 
case. This case was not brought because it had merit, but as a 
result of jealously on the part of Microsoft's competitors. I am in 
support of the case being resolved as soon as possible.
    As a result of this suit, Microsoft has agreed to a variety of 
changes in its business practices. These changes will put to rest 
any complaints by Microsoft's competitors that they are engaging in 
anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft has agreed to share the fruits 
of its labor with its competitors. They will disclose interfaces 
that are internal to Windows' operating system products. They have 
agreed to make it easier for computer companies to add non-Microsoft 
software to their computers, too. These steps will give Microsoft's 
competitors a giant boost in their ability to compete with 
Microsoft. The settlement agreement provides more than adequate 
protection against violation of the antitrust laws.
    Nothing more should be required of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Harold McClarnon



MTC-00011343

From: Judy Sawyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:22am
Subject: I am against litigatioin
    In my state of N. C. we have approximately 1,000.00, motivated, 
great citizens who work for Microsoft.. N. C. has been blessed with 
a fine company , like Microsoft, locating in this state. I own 
Microsoft software, as does my husband and my daughter and we are 
very pleased with the quality and the price. We buy Microsoft, we 
have a choice. and we would not change at present. In my husbands 
profession he has used sun, oracle and many other software venders 
and finds them all inferior to Microsoft. These companies should go 
to work and developed wonderful software that would be competitive 
and I would try their product again.. I am sure there will be 
software beyond Microsoft and some young inventor is probably 
working on it right now, not expecting to find it in a court of law. 
I do not feel I have been overcharged for my soft ware, and I have 
not been in anyway persuaded to buy Microsoft, it was my freedom of 
choice.
    Judy Sawyer
    5913 Cedar Landing Rd.
    Wilmington, N. C. 28409
    [email protected]



MTC-00011344

From: Jim Rapp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I applaud the DOJ for coming to settlement with The Microsoft 
Corporation over antitrust concerns. Although the company has 
perhaps been aggressive in certain business practices, it seems to 
have curtailed these practices, and wants to move on in life, being 
a good U.S. corporate citizen. Unfortunately, it appears a cottage 
industry of media pundits, journalists, attorneys, special interest 
groups, politicians, and competitors, who seem to have built careers 
around keeping the company left dangling do not want resolution. 
Microsoft has created many jobs, has helped the U.S. to become a 
leader in information technology, and I use their products which 
enable me to make a living.
    I hope that the DOJ continues to work hard to get all parties to 
settle the Microsoft antitrust case, and allows a great U.S. company 
to operate without the shackles of all of the above named special 
interests.
    Thank you.
    Jim R.
    Northern Virginia
    (Note, these thoughts also apply to my Austin, Texas based mom, 
and Huntsville, Alabama based cousin)



MTC-00011345

From: Steven Rubenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:26am
Subject: Input for Tunney Act
    I hereby do my ``civic'' (public interest) duty of putting on 
record my opinion, for Tunney Act consideration, of the proposed 
settlement in DOJ and ``some states'' vs. M$.
    Fact: Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin was disconcerted with M$'s 
business behavior as he understood it.
    Fact: M$ and DOJ persuaded an Appellate panel, including Judge 
Harry Edwards, to overrule Judge Sporkin.
    Fact: Failure to resolve some of Judge Sporkin's concerns 
eventually resulted in a full scale, costly lawsuit.
    Fact: Federal Judge T.P. Jackson became so disconcerted with 
M$'s business and courtroom behavior as to jeopardize his career.
    Fact: Antitrust experts expected the DC Circuit, including Judge 
Edwards, to overturn the bulk of Judge Jackson's rulings.
    Fact: The DC Circuit UPHELD the bulk of Judge Jackson's rulings.
    Fact: The Supreme Court would not grant certiorari to M$.
    Fact: The DOJ, now headed by John Ashcroft, not Attorney General 
when the case began, reached a proposed settlement with M$.


    Fact: Before proposed settlement, DOJ publicly eliminated its 
strongest weapon: possible breaking up M$.
    Fact: News reports stated the ``states'' were surprised when the 
DOJ settled and were told after the fact.
    Fact: 9 of the states and DC would not accept the settlement, 
contenting it would not remedy M$'s violations as upheld by the DC 
Circuit.
    Fact: News reports indicate antitrust experts largely feel the 
proposed settlement is easy on M$ and has loopholes.
    Fact: Throughout the trial and settlement talks, M$ did not 
abate its campaign to make all things software its own--even 
dictating hardware. At least 9 Federal judges--2 at the District 
level, 7 at the Circuit level--and 9 Federal justices have expressed 
agreement, overtly or implicitly, that M$ has repeatedly conducted 
illegal business practices under, at least, the Sherman Act. I, as a 
consumer, a scholar, a sometime software developer (without 
affiliation with any software company), and a concerned citizen, do 
not see how the proposed settlement remedies any of the findings 
against M$. Further, at least from the time of the DC Circuit 
panel's overruling of Judge Sporkin, M$'s subsequent actions have 
shown it not to be trustworthy. Further, the fact that the DOJ, 
under a new Attorney General, would, without notifying the states 
accept such a settlement, under such conditions,
    REEKS OF THE VERY KIND OF BACK ROOM DEALINGS THE TUNNEY ACT WAS 
DESIGNED TO AVERT.
    The only possible good in allowing a such a software monopolist 
to exist, is that it is U.S. based, and, in the fashion of the 
Federal government's facilitating the RCA-led oligopoly of World War 
I, a U.S. based monopoly in theory can benefit national security, 
including by facilitating standardization. Even this argument fails 
with M$: its leviathan tactics have removed, in fact necessitated 
against, any need for it to assure software quality. The FBI 
recently got on M$'s case, for building software that is so easily 
penetrated and subverted. The damage M$ has done in quashing 
software innovation invites software developers worldwide to expose 
and capitalize on the inferiorities of its products. M$ Internet 
Information Server and M$ Outlook have become such wide standards as 
to become two of the, if not THE two, major carriers of viruses and 
worms in the world. Consequently, even the argument of allowing M$ 
to continue in its current fashion for national security falls 
short.
    We know that being a monopoly is not illegal, but violating the 
Sherman, Clayton, or Robinson Act is. M$ continues to claim it has 
the right to innovate, when in fact almost every one of its products 
either has been bought--starting with DOS itself--or copied from a 
less-monied innovator--Apple, Lotus, Netscape, RealMedia, Sun 
Microsystems, to name a few--which M$ can do, because it has the 
operating system running on 95% of the world's desktops. Lack of 
innovation cannot be good for the consumer. Anyone who praises M$'s 
products is doing so without knowledge of what might exist if 
potential products weren't crushed before 


[[Page 25446]]


inception or fruition, 
because venture capitalists balk at investing in something they know 
will be thwarted and because software developers have less chance 
and possible reward from following through on ideas.
    Neither can the consumer benefit monetarily by there being only 
one major software company. The free market concept implies 
competition determines price. M$, being a monopoly, can charge 
almost as it pleases. Recently corporate customers have become 
disturbed with M$'s coercive upgrade licensing policy. Though no 
competition remains to which prices can be compared, it is known 
that M$ has more surplus than any other corporation in the world--
even more than any pharmaceutical or energy company. M$ could lower 
prices on its operating systems and productivity software 
significantly and remain ``the world's richest company.'' It lowers 
prices on products in markets it is trying to win -- browser and 
media player are two examples--to the point of negative revenue on 
those products, because its vast surplus enables it to cross-
subsidize.
    Surely, inasmuch as the Tunney Act is constitutional, this is a 
case to invoke it. The DC Circuit and the Supreme Courts await the 
outcome.
    Humbly submitted,
    Steven Rubenstein
    Murfreesboro, TN
    615 896-7862



MTC-00011346

From: Matt Del Vecchio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am with the 9 states that have dissented from the others--I 
beleive that while the proposed settlement is ``better than 
nothing'', it is not Good Enough. without getting into it, it 
appears the DOJ has backed down. that it was all roar and less bite. 
this may have something to do w/ the new administration. a desire to 
protect big business, perhaps.
    Sincerely,
    matt
    Matt Del Vecchio
    Web Architect
    Microgistix
    (612) 486-1125
    http://www.chumbo.com http://www.chumbo.com/>
    http://www.microgistix.com http://www.microgistix.com/>



MTC-00011347

From: Gwen and DeVerne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have chosen to use Apple MacIntosh computer and operating 
system. I have freedom of choice. I chose to use Apple and I chose 
to use Eudora e-mail software and I chose to use Office for the Mac. 
If Microsoft was not supporting Apple by marketing Office for the 
Mac software Apple would cease to exist.
    Let the market place choose, not government.
    DeVerne Jacobsen 01-15-2002 --



MTC-00011348

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is unsatisfactory in many 
ways. In a nutshell, the ``penalty does not fit the crime''. The 
proposed settlement does not solve for the injury done to the Java 
technology community or the Netscape browser market. It does not 
solve for the monopolistic behavior by Microsoft. Please use your 
power to stop the monopoly madness. Our consumer rights and security 
is at risk.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Sanguinetti
    (20 year employee--high tech)



MTC-00011349

From: Alfredo Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write you to ask your continued support of the recent 
Microsoft settlement. This settlement is the product of three years 
of deliberation and compromise, and contains terms that are 
beneficial to the entire IT sector. By supporting this agreement, we 
help to get our technology industry back to business and our economy 
flowing once again. By not supporting this agreement, we jeopardize 
our position in this highly competitive worldwide IT market.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to make changes in licensing and 
marketing terms, but has agreed to make changes in design and 
development, such as changing XP and 2000 Professional to make it 
more accommodating for software developers other than Microsoft. 
This is a bold step, and we need to support this type of agreement 
as it brings us together as an industry and as a nation.
    Please help support this settlement by helping to stop any 
further actions against this agreement. let us help get our industry 
back to business.
    Sincerely,
    Alfredo Rodriguez



MTC-00011350

From: Jeffrey A. Mattero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Please place me on the side of encouraging the parties to settle 
this ridiculous lawsuit! It should never have been filed in the 
first place, and I can't believe Microsoft is even willing to 
settle! The company was enormously successful simply because they 
had the best product on the market. Unfortunately, in this country, 
success breeds contempt, especially from the government. It honestly 
disgusts me. Anyway, if Microsoft is willing to settle, please quit 
wasting taxpayer dollars, and end this once and for 
all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you.


    Jeffrey A. Mattero
    [email protected]



MTC-00011351

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Our government needs to protect our economy, and not to be 
derailed by attempts to benefit certain companies' interest. It is 
unfortunate that the remaining states that rejected the agreement 
have strong support from Microsoft's competitors, in which they 
reside. Those state representatives have no choice but to support 
their prime resident companies, and their counter proposal is only 
to benefit those resident companies. The focus of this case should 
be based on whether Microsoft has indeed hurt the consumers and our 
economy. If Microsoft has not taken a lead in consolidating computer 
operating systems, and offer compatible/integrated software, we 
would have induced significant inefficiencies throughout the 
country, and the world. I highly encourage our government to move 
forward and bring this case to a closure that would benefit the 
crippled economy. There are other major elements that we all need to 
focus on, instead of continuing to deplete our valuable resources on 
this case. Microsoft is now fully aware of its boundaries, in terms 
of ``anti-competitive behaviors,'' and shall continue to offer more 
useful software tools that ultimately benefit us all.
    Sincerely yours,
    Takaaki Hayashi
    839 Bramerton
    Andover, KS 67002



MTC-00011352

From: David Baur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The District Court of the United States of America
Attn: Honorable Judge J. Fredrick Motz
    Dear Judge Motz,
    I disagree with you, as to YOUR rejection of the proposed 
settlement that Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson court had arrived at. 
I do not believe that the Corporation known as Microsoft should have 
been sued for anti-trust violations's in the very first place. I 
know of not one single industry that has done as much as Microsoft, 
to advance the education of millions of peoples within these United 
States of America, and peoples throughout the entire world.
    There are however many Corporations within these United States 
that clearly demonstrate, and factually have, a monopolistic 
position as to market share....Southwest Bell, Frito Lay division of 
Pepsico Inc. just to mention a few. Perhaps if you truly want to 
pursue anti-trust as a Judge, visit your local grocery store and 
simply go to the chip section and see just how many competitors you 
have. I think you will find Frito vs Frito vs Frito...
    Also instead of pursuing a Corporation like Microsoft. which in 
my opinion should not have been done in the first place; why not 


[[Page 25447]]



pursue a better criminal justice system. Talk about a disgrace to 
the American Citizenry.... our legal system is absolutely an 
abortion of legal justice, and I am not speaking of anti-trust 
suits, I am speaking of the common everyday criminal act...of the 
murders, or the rape, of robbery,of the freedom that many criminals 
receive in the courts within these United States of America!
    Let your talents be used in solving the problem of the citizen. 
Let's get back to basics Judge.
    Someone in Gov't needs to provide a better way to communicate 
with the Gov't., why not spend some time with Bill Gates and develop 
a system in which the citizenry can vote, communicate, state their 
opinions, make observations, suggest solutions to our ( suppose to 
be ) government.
    Let not one man have one voice, but rather have one man 
supported by many voices.
    Thank You,
    David H. Baur Sr.
    David H. Baur
    11770 Ferguson
    Dallas, Texas 75228
    972 279 4927 front desk number
    972 279 4939 back office number



MTC-00011353

From: A P Story
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:36am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Will probably end up a big mess like Bell/AT&T. What's happened 
to the old spirit of building a business and not getting shot down? 
I don't own much Microsoft but am greatly disappointed.



MTC-00011355

From: Joseph Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is outrageous and very pro-microsoft. 
Microsoft should be hit with huge fines and required to provide only 
hardware to school systems. The schools should have the choice of 
either an Apple system or an Intel system running Linux.



MTC-00011356

From: Mark Keckeis
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally;
    I, like many people in the technology industry, am frustrated 
and concerned by the DOJ's Proposed Final Judgment in it's anti-
trust case against Microsoft. Having found Microsoft to be a 
monopoly and to have acted in a predatory manner, the DOJ looks like 
it's about to let Microsoft off with little more than a slap on the 
wrist. Why should Microsoft be above the law? The DOJ should do 
three things in order to ensure that the law is administered fairly:
    1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
    2. Deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, and
    3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
    I cant see that the PFJ does any of these things. Judge Kollar-
Kotally, I am not an attorney but I have been in the technology 
industry since 1982 working for a number of vendors including Data 
General (now a part of EMC), Apple Computer for 8 years, and four 
start-up software companies since 1996 including four years at 
Commerce One. I have personally observed Microsoft behavior both as 
a competitor and as a partner. They are everything that the original 
suit and verdict found them to be. It's a part of their culture. 
It's the way their best and brightest get ahead. The PFJ will 
exacerbate the behavior that made them a monopoly and created the 
suit in the first place.
    Microsoft is not an innovator. They play the late entry game 
that their size affords them. By the way, they are not alone in this 
practice. All of the largest companies, Oracle, SAP and others do 
the same thing. It is possible for them because they have recognized 
brand, distribution and money. Three things that very few small, 
innovative companies have in quantities that allow them to compete 
head to head with these giants. The difference is that Microsoft is 
a MONOPOLY. By ``bolting'', It literally costs them nothing to take 
the ideas and concepts of much smaller companies and leverage two of 
these three powerful resources.
    The innovation that has made the American economy the most 
prosperous on the planet is a fragile thing. It starts in small ways 
with concepts and ideas can become powerful when properly deployed 
in the marketplace. The PFJ will throttle and undermine the risk-
takers who have been the source of so many of the ideas that will 
drive our industry--and the American economy--forward.
    Please, don't allow the PFJ to stand. Strike it down. The 
American economy will survive and thrive through a settlement that 
enforces the law.
    Thanks for your consideration and best regards,
    Mark Keckeis
    Director of Sales
    nthOrbit
    3031 Tisch Way, Suite 12PW
    San Jose, CA 95128
    Cell: 925-963-0161
    Office: 408-423-4690



MTC-00011357

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    Microsoft is one of this countries leading growth companies. 
They have contributed to our economy and citizens, and we personally 
have benefited from their products at a fair price.
    This action is about money. How to extract money from a 
successful company by politicians, competitors, and the government. 
You cannot fool the public. Perhaps 50% of all U.S. citizens have 
some interest in Microsoft, either through stock or their products, 
and this action effects them. We have more important problems to 
expend our resources on, THE ECONOMY.
    Rod Bunney
    [email protected]



MTC-00011358

From: Bill Richart


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:58am
Subject: microsoft settlement case
    Please see the attached letter with respect to the Microsoft 
settlement case. Sincerely,
William Richart
2445 Sheridan Street
Williamsport Penns Ivania 17701
January 10, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case has taken too 
long to occur. Litigation should have never taken place from the 
start and the nine states that have continued lawsuits need to be 
suppressed.
    Microsoft is an extremely important asset to the tech sector in 
our economy. Our government should be praising the company for all 
it has done instead of criticizing it. As a firm believer in free 
enterprise, I think it is ridiculous that Microsoft must disclose 
its technological secrets. Have we no more respect for intellectual 
property? Now Microsoft must work with a handicap like no other in 
the history of the IT sector.
    This nation needs to get past this legal mess. The settlement 
presents a viable solution, so I support it. It is time to get back 
to the business of innovation, and leave litigation behind.
    Sincerely,
    William Richart
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00011359

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree with Microsoft. Get on with this settlement instead of 
trying to get us stockholders to finance the several dissenting 
state governments' budgets. The courts have accomplished everything 
legal and allowable. Let the states balance their own budgets and 
let Microsoft go back to doing what they do best--making the 
software the public wants. Thanks. Sam Ostertag, Mesa, AZ.



MTC-00011360

From: David Zickefoose
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Zickefoose
10314 Washington Drive
Omaha, NE 68127
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the 


[[Page 25448]]


courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David C. Zickefoose



MTC-00011361

From: Randy Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:03pm
Subject: RE MS Settlement
    As a long time software developer (who has never worked for 
Microsoft or owned their stock), I urge you to strike a blow for 
consumers, and drop your suit. MS has served as a strong competitor 
against potential monopolists such as Digital Research, IBM, Novell, 
Sun, Oracle, & Netscape, which is why current and former executives 
of those companies continue to lobby you against Microsoft. Instead 
you should stand fast for Microsoft's right to compete and for 
consumers rights to benefit from that competition.
    Digital Research sold CP/M and derivatives for $200 and up to 
consumers when IBM PC was released, it was MS's release of MS/DOS 
that made the PC affordable and usable. Adjusted for inflation, the 
price of Microsoft's operating system has barely increased (from 
$40--$100 over 20 years), yet instead of a cryptic command line 
interface with minimal utilities written by less than a dozen 
engineers, consumers now get the fruits of thousands of engineers 
efforts containing built in pc & printer networking, graphical user 
interfaces, high speed file systems, word processor (wordpad), 
internet browser, calculator, e-mail, paint program, terminal 
program, games, etc. If you force Microsoft to unbundle any of these 
products, you will cost consumers millions of dollars by forcing 
them to pay separately for each of the products they need. No 
software company has the right to compete by forcing consumers to 
pay for what another company is willing to provide as part of a 
bundle. As a software developer I know that ``middleware'' is a 
dangerous place to compete since it's likely to be incorporated into 
a future OS release, but I also know that I benefit when MS bundling 
continously makes their OS more feature rich and accessible, as an 
internet developer I know our market would have been retarded had 
not Microsoft made internet access simple, easy and free by bundling 
explorer.
    I also know that Netscape had dozens of competitors, which they 
brutally destroyed by giving away their browser (they of course say 
they only gave away a ``beta'' but I was there, the beta was a very 
solid application that made it unnecessary to buy a browser from 
anyone else). Unlike Microsoft, they didn't plan to keep their 
browser free, just until they made it the dominant middleware for 
accessing the internet, then like a good monopolist they planned to 
stick to the consumer. Now the DOJ wants to stick to us and force 
everyone to pay $49 for a ``browser tax''?
    Look through history. Lotus dominated the spreadsheet market, 
forcing everyone to pay $500 for the ``standard'', a standard so 
entrenched that no company could compete successfully against them. 
Microsoft and others created better spreadsheets, but to no avail. 
It wasn't until Microsoft was smart enough to create Office, giving 
corporations much more value (word-processing and other products) 
for the same $500, that the monopoly was broken. Consumers saved 
hundreds of millions of dollars due to Microsoft's efforts.
    It's the same in networking, where Novell built a standard 
around their decreptit Netware Server operating systems. It wasn't 
until Microsoft created Windows NT, and built a cheaper, better 
network operating system that consumers and corporations had a 
choice. It's the same in databases, where MS keeps Oracle honest, 
and in workstations & serves, where MS keeps Sun honest. Please 
strike a blow for competition and drop your suit, please don't force 
me and other consumers to pay more for our software. thanks,
    Clarke Hill



MTC-00011362

From: Patricia Book
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Book
6234 E. Presidio
Mesa, AZ 85215
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and


 judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Book



MTC-00011363

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN I BELIEVE ALL OF THE ANTITRUST LITIGATION 
AGAINST MICROSOFT SHOULD COME TO AN END AND ALLOW THE COMPANY TO 
DEVOTE IT'S TIME AND MONEY AND ENERGIES TO THE CREATION OF BETTER 
SOFTWARE AND PRODUCTS TO HELP CONSUMERS AS IT HAS SO SUPERBLY DONE 
IN THE PAST. ONE CONCERNED CITIZEN



MTC-00011364

From: Kentyn Reynolds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Re: Microsoft Settlement,
    In my position as CTO of a large Internet based company I have 
the opportunity to observe the long-term effects of Microsoft's 
outrageous behavior. I have seen how Microsoft's undermining of JAVA 
and other standards has pushed the industry backwards by at least 10 
years, and cost every company that I know thousands of unnecessary 
dollars in multiple development efforts and exception level 
programming. With the latest US court ruling we now have given 
Microsoft access to infiltrate our government with millions of 
dollars of crippling technology. Microsoft should feel the maximum 
punishment of the law for their monopolistic practices. Please 
reexamine the recent rulings on this case and create justice for the 
small technology companies that legally support our government.
    Kentyn Reynolds
    CTO
    ClickAction



MTC-00011365

From: Steve Foerster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the whole matter was nothing more than the U.S. 
government trying to strongarm the only major industry that didn't 
kowtow to them, and thus the matter should be dropped immediately 
with a full apology to Microsoft's employees and shareholders (I am 
neither) and the American people.
    Steve Foerster



MTC-00011366

From: Pete Holsberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:29pm
Subject: Revised Proposed Final Judgement
    Dear Reader,
    I have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment against 
Microsoft and completely 


[[Page 25449]]


concur. I do have a question: why does this 
judgment expire at all? Why is Microsoft not held to this forever 
and ever? Should Microsoft return to its old ways after this 
judgment expires, can further action be taken against them?
    Thank you,
    Pete Holsberg
    Columbus, NJ 08022



MTC-00011367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Folks,
    How can you continue to punish our most successful American 
companies that give the consumer products that are worth to me as a 
user at least 50 times more than the small cost of their software ? 
I'm a Microsoft WebTV user. For only $14.95 per month I get access 
to cyberspace. I use my WebTV everyday and love it. I don't kow of 
anybody, except Microsoft's failed competitors, that complains about 
Microsoft's products being too expensive.
    Why doesn't the Federal governernment do something about my 
higher and higher electric bills at home instead of tryng to fix 
Microsoft when it is not even broken. How about a U.S. energy policy 
that brings down the cost of living everyday. Microsoft has not 
changed my WebTV monthly cost of $14.95 for over 3 years but my 
electric costs go up every year.
    Thank you for listening.
    Richard Stouts



MTC-00011368

From: Lee Behel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Justice Department to accept the proposed settlement. 
Microsoft has suffered unjustly long enough and the entire 
technology sector needs this to end now.
    Lee Behel



MTC-00011369

From: Randy Loflin
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/15/02  12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 15, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to object to the settlement of the Microsoft case 
which has been reached. Nothing in this settlement provides 
punishment of Microsoft, or relief to the consumers of computer 
products and programs in the United States. As a 30 + year computer 
user, programmer and buyer, I find the settlement, which allows 
Microsoft to continue its monopoly, to be of no help to me. In fact, 
as witnessed by recent FBI comments regarding the Microsoft XP 
operating system, maintaining the Microsoft monopoly can only be 
hazardous to the people of the United States. Any decision in this, 
the penalty, phase of the trial should include provisions to make 
Microsoft operating systems compete equally with other operating 
systems, ie., it should be an add on to any computer system, not 
bundled with the system. Additionally, Microsoft program document 
types must be available to the developers of other programs, so that 
document interchange will be facilitated. And thirdly, Microsoft 
internet schemata must interface without problems with all internet 
users.
    Finally, I would like to say that we must remember that this is 
the penalty phase of the trial. Microsoft has already been found 
guilty of antitrust violations. Now is the time to support the 
citizens of the United States, the computer users, buyers, sellers 
and programmers in this, the new millenium.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any 
questions, feel free to contact me.
    James R. Loflin
    [email protected]
    6020 Camino Alegre
    El Paso, Tx 79912-2606
    (915) 581-1476 (home)
    (915) 771-6391 (work)
    (915) 373-1476 (cell)
    (915) 774-4905 (fax)



MTC-00011370

From: Bob Gregg
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want the DOJ to settle this case. The offer is fair and in the 
public interest. DOJ resources should be applied to more critical 
agenda items.



MTC-00011371

From: Jim McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Penalty Suggestion
    Here's what I'd like:
    1. Force Microsoft to adopt a file format for all Office 
applications and PUBLISH their spec. Note that I am not asking for 
the publication of the source code of Office, simply the description 
of the file formats used. This way, people can use other Office 
suites (PerfectOffice, SmartSuite, StarOffice) without wondering if 
the files created will load properly in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, 
etc... Just this would open up some competition in the Office Suite 
market.
    2. Force Microsoft to publish every single API in Windows. 
Again, I am not asking for the publication of the windows source 
code, but simply to the Application Programming Interface. This 
would have two benefits: It would make sure that every service, 
every facility is clearly exposed for use while at the same time, 
removing the cloud of suspicion that Microsoft has some secret APIs 
that make their applications work better than others.
    3. Muzzle the Microsoft FUD division. This is by far the most 
irritating aspect of Microsoft as a business entity. They generate 
FUD and make belive that other competing products are not good while 
it's far from the case. Feel free to select your example, there are 
tons of them out there.


    4. Forbid them to use the words ``innovate'' and ``innovation'' 
unless they can specifically show that they are the first-movers for 
the particular product they are advertising. Again, there are tons 
of examples out there where Microsoft has been only an ``adapter'' 
as opposed to an ``innovator''.
    5. Offer a striped-down version of Windows. Just the bare bones 
and a text-based browser (like Lynx) for initial download of the 
browser of choice. Nothing else built-in, nothing else cobbled 
together. A base install should not be more than 20 Megabytes and 
should scream on Pentium-class machines.
    6. Word the requirements that hefty fines will be leveraged for 
non-compliance. Hopefully, this way, we'll have more competition and 
a better computing environment. As well, if Microsoft is still 
dominant after this, it'll be because they have earned it the good 
old-fashioned way and we'll have little if anything to complain 
about.



MTC-00011372

From: Samuel Sotillo-Hermoso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Since the beginning, the decision to prosecute MS was not a good 
idea at all; however, the settlement is a worst one. In fact, it is 
a populist approach to tell MS to give to ``disadvantaged public 
schools more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and 
training, and around 1 million Windows licenses for renovated PCs.'' 
This ``gift'' is the imposition of a de facto monopoly under 
government sponsorship.
    I hope you can settle this subject in a way that helps all 
customers, not only a fraction of them, without damaging the whole 
industry. Remember that the IT sector is not only MS.
    Samuel Sotillo
    Statesville, NC



MTC-00011373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:51pm
Subject: Opinion regarding the microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I'm an American citizen overseas and I would like to express my 
concern about the recent Microsoft decision. I was greatly disturbed 
about the appearance of ``injustice'' that it embodies. I don't 
think that a convicted monopolist with a long track record of the 
destruction of highly innovative companies can be left virtually 
untouched. In many ways, this company now exerts more influence than 
the US government in economic terms both nationally and 
internationally and, rulings that allow the continued misbehavior of 
this confirmed monopolist, in my view, represent a real threat to 
our national economic welfare and our democracy. In fact, I just 
don't understand how this ruling has emerged from the most respected 
justice body in the world-- although I didn't agree with the 
previous manner of Judge Jackson's ruling (content aside), the 
present situation appears 


[[Page 25450]]


to be wholly unjust to an industry that is 
the very essence of innovation in America and who's strength has 
been built upon the emergence of thousands small innovative 
companies over the last 20 to 30 years. I agree wholeheartedly with 
the economist J Shumpeter who believed that the health of a nation's 
economy and its economic future is based upon innovation and that 
the purpose of profit is to pay for ``creative destruction''--the 
cost of innovation. Take a look at the US computer industry--is this 
not an example of Shumpeter's views in the purest sense? Is this not 
the primary reason for the success of the US economy during the last 
20-years?
    Microsoft now totally dominates the desktop market in both 
operating systems and applications software, it dominates the 
hardware industry through this means, it holds a very strong 
position in the server market. It has done this by the elimination 
of competition at every possible opportunity--by leveraging 
dominance of the operating system. This is a fact that can be 
illustrated in repeated instances; IBM, Lotus, Netscape and Apple 
being just four examples, shall I go on? The next step for them, and 
the objective of their .net strategy, is to take over the internet, 
and place gateways for every user of the internet. This can easily 
be done by dominating the desktop market with Windows XP, with its 
raw sockets, and introducing a new MS standard MS TCP/IP protocol 
for the control of data transmission in the guise of greater 
security. Who can fight this when Microsoft controls the software on 
more than 90 percent of the desktop machines? And it can be done in 
an invisible way, so that the average consumer and the US government 
will not even notice--until it is too late, just like Lotus, Apple, 
Netscape, and others. The additional strategy that they are seeking, 
is to use the patent system and their legal muscle to control the 
Open Source Software development movement, which now is the only 
real threat (following the DOJ decision) that remains. If Microsoft 
is successful in these two ways, then the US government will 
definitely be relegated to a second class status and will become a 
virtual, economic fiefdom of the Microsoft Corporation. Can you 
imagine that the most important aspect of the information age in the 
United States, the internet, it's software, hardware and income will 
be totally dominated by one company? Incidentally, the internet, 
don't forget, was created by the Department of Defense and the UNIX 
world, federal government and University research agencies, not 
commercial entities.
    The American economic system has long been based upon the idea 
of creating a level playing field for small businesses. This was a 
major concern at the time of the American revolution; many experts 
would say that the American revolution was a battle of the small 
business economic model (America) against the control of a 
government Mercantile system (giant global British trading 
companies). The American economic system maintained a relatively 
healthy balance until the emergence of the ``robber barons'' of the 
late 1800's, which led to the current anti-trust laws that we have 
today, implemented under Woodrow Wilson. I am not a socialist nor am 
I a pure capitalist, but I do believe that one role of the 
government and that of the Justice Department in economics is to 
ensure a level playing field for all participants. Otherwise the 
entire economic system becomes skewed, such that we create a few 
extremely wealthy individuals and then everyone else. This is not a 
healthy development for any democracy; especially the greatest and 
most successful democracy in history.
    How about some analogies to the original antitrust legislation 
of the previous turn of the century (1900)--the ``robber barons'' 
were largely the rail tycoons. They controlled the railroad networks 
and the machines that ran them, allowing them to control interstate 
trade. In the present turn of the century, Microsoft represents the 
same threat in the information age, where they control the machines 
(read desktop computers) and now want to control the ``tracks'' 
(read internet). Is there any real difference? Not hardly. The 
stakes are much greater--because it is then just one small step to 
the control of information. And we all know how democracy is 
undermined by placing the control of information in the hands of one 
entity, be it a person, political party of company. Look at Hitler's 
Germany, Stalin's Russia--in the future will we say Microsoft's 
America? If there is to be control of information (and I'm not 
arguing that there should), then it should at least be of the people 
and for the people--in other words, a (frequently) elected body--not 
a private individual, one person or one company. That's the way 
democracies work.
    As I said, I am not a socialist nor am I a laissez-faire 
capitalist; this email is being written on Microsoft software on my 
laptop; I use Linux software on my desktop at home, and we utilize a 
mixture of Microsoft and Linux in our office network. I see 
advantages and disadvantages in all systems. But the development of 
competition has not come from other commercial entities to 
Microsoft, because these would soon perish. The competition has come 
from a grass-roots volunteer effort, of thousands of developers from 
around the world, working through the internet on common problems 
and common projects without financial compensation--rather, for the 
pure purpose of making computer software that is based upon a common 
and open standard, has freely available source code, is free to use 
and is technically the best that it can be. I have no doubt that 
Microsoft wishes to destroy this movement, as their recent public 
statements about open source software licensing will testify.
    What are other countries doing? The EU recognizes the danger 
that Microsoft poses, and has their own ``anti-trust'' action 
underway. In Asia, enormous support is being given to open source 
software. China is basing their national software industry on 
government-supported Linux systems. Japan is a significant supporter 
and Korea has just announced the installation of Linux for some 
120,000 government employees. India is supporting both commercial 
and open source software. I have read that our own government is 
moving to open source solutions in many areas - let's not let our


legal system destroy this valuable economic development.
    I don't know what the correct solution is; I am not so naive as 
to think that this is all a one-sided situation; and I personally 
don't like to see any successful company penalized for that success. 
Nor do I like to see private, open source development destroyed by a 
financial power of a monopolist. The solution, perhaps, is not the 
present one, nor is it the previous decision of Judge Jackson. It 
lies elsewhere, and should be subjected to further study by 
technical experts. It's worth taking more time in this one--this 
threatens our democracy, our way of life and our economic welfare.
    Just like railroads, telecommunications, power, etc, there comes 
a time when the government must step in and protect the economic 
welfare of its citizens and the economic future of the nation. 
Allowing such a monopolist as Microsoft to continue to operate 
virtually unfettered is the wrong thing to do for the computer 
industry and for our democracy.
    G Robin Summers
    [email protected]



MTC-00011374

From: Jeff Holcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
``remedy'' has no teeth and will do nothing to stop Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse its monopoly power. Only through strong 
enforcement and a curb on their monopoly can other companies compete 
with Microsoft. They have shown time and again that they will be 
ruthless and will continue to abuse their monopoly.
    Jeff Holcomb
    [email protected]
    Tucson, AZ



MTC-00011375

From: Michael Motyka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:25pm
Subject: One important facet of the settlement.
    I am concerned with one aspect of Microsoft's behavior that has 
a serious negative effect on competition and angers me when I go 
computer shopping : MS using it's large market share to suppress 
competition by pressuring computer vendors into restrictive license 
agreements. Please look into MS licensing requirements that prevent 
vendors from offering non-MSWIN machines or dual-boot machines ( 
machines that can boot either MSWIN or an alternative OS by a user's 
choice at startup ). This problem is common for desktops but is even 
more striking in the laptop market. I would like to purchase a 
laptop computer but every laptop on the market contains MSWIN. It is 
a fact that Linux can run on laptops. Why can't I buy a laptop w/o 
Windows and skip the license fee for something I don't want? Laptop 
vendors may say they don't want to sell a product w/o MSWIN but 
there have been rumors of MS pressure on vendors to not sell a 
competing OS.


[[Page 25451]]



    Personally, I intend to cease purchasing MS products from this 
time forward and move everyone in my family to an open source OS 
like Linux. I want YOU to be sure that I can get hardware without 
paying a Microsoft TAX!
    Mike



MTC-00011376

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 7:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: (no subject)
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does nothing to stop Microsoft from operating as 
a monopoly through the use of its operating system. Second, the 
settlement does not punish Microsoft for clearly violating anti-
trust laws in the past. It would be a terrible standard to set by 
letting Microsoft get away with its retaliation tactics, bolting 
schemes, and attacks on Java. All these tactics lower competition in 
a suppossedly free market and also limit softward standards. 
Finally, the PFJ does not provide an effective enforcement mechanism 
for the weak restrictions it does implement.
    To sum up, I'm deeply concerned the recent settlement does not 
regulate Microsoft enough in the future allowing Microsoft to 
continue its monopolistic tactics. In addition, Microsoft is not 
even being punished for laws it clearly broke in the past. This sets 
a terrible standard. I would request that you do your best to 
overturn this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Goldberg
    Brighton, Massachusetts
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011377

From: Mid Continent Trucking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:00pm
Subject: U.S. v Microsoft
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 14, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kollar-K0telly:
    I am writing to you to express my support for Iowa Attorney 
General Tom Miller and his efforts to obtain a fair settlement for 
the citizens of Iowa with respect to the pending U.S. v. Microsoft 
case. It is my belief that the proposed settlement is a means for 
the U.S. Department of Justice to make a long-standing case go away. 
If I were a stockholder of Microsoft, which I am not, I would 
definitely be in favor of this settlement. However, as a consumer, I 
am deeply disturbed by the failure to eliminate their monopoly, and 
the eventual impact Microsoft will have on the availability of 
competition technologies, due to their domination of the market.
    As I sit here composing this letter, my thoughts run the gamete 
of issues surrounding the Department of Justice proposed settlement, 
but not being an attorney, I feel that any argument I may make would 
be deficient in delivery and impact. It is for this reason that I 
rely on the office of the Iowa Attorney General to protect my 
interests. It is my hope that after reviewing all sides of this 
issue, that you arrive at a settlement that adequately addresses the 
liability of Microsoft with respect to their violation of antitrust 
laws.
    Sincerely
    Dennis K. Henderson
    40404 190th St.
    Mapleton, IA 51034



MTC-00011378

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Salim Furth [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 2:32 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    To be quite brief, I urge you to reject the U.S. Justice 
Department's agreement with the Microsoft Corporation. As a 
computer-dependent student and webmaster, I experience firsthand the 
MS software and OS monopoly firsthand, and find it distinctly 
unAmerican. The inability of other operating systems and software 
providers to be competitive in the American market effectively 
outsources innovation overseas, which will catch up with the U.S. 
software industry in a few years if Microsoft is not stopped.
    Thank you for entertaining input from citizens, as one such 
citizen I greatly appreciate this service.
    Sincerely,
    Salim Furth
    Milton, Massachusetts
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011379

From: WENDELL SPIRES
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WENDELL SPIRES
3601 N 300 E
KOKOMO, IN 46901
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.


    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    WENDELL SPIRES



MTC-00011380

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge; I would like to bring to your attention what I and 
many other members of the technological community think is totally 
unacceptable in the proposed deal between Microsoft and the justice 
department.
    1. The deal completely fails to terminate the Microsoft 
monopoly, allowing it to expand into new markets. The fact that 
Microsoft has abused its monopoly and is likely to do so again does 
not seem to be important enough for the justice department to stop 
Microsoft from monopolizing the market now, and preventing it from 
doing so in the future.
    2. According to the deal, Microsoft is allowed to decide which 
product should be a ``part of the OS''. This gives a way for 
Microsoft to bind any of its non-operating system related products 
to Windows. It could be Internet Explorer as an example of the web 
browser, or a stock trading software, or any other service or 
software, preventing users from installing and using products other 
than provided by Microsoft.
    3. Although the deal requires Microsoft to allow the PC 
manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs and allow them 
to install icons or links to competing middleware programs, PC 
manufacturers are not allowed to remove Microsoft's programs 
completely. As a result, those Microsoft programs may prompt the 
user to reconfigure the system and replace all the competitor's 
middleware with Microsoft middleware, if they'd like. Many users 
would say ``yes'', which will remove all the competing middleware.
    4. Another important issue that is not addressed in the deal is 
the way Microsoft deals with existing and potential competitors. For 
example, the deal does not restrict retaliation against potential 
competitors.
    5. Microsoft refuses to support Java developers and alters 
industry standards, like Java, to defeat competition. Still, the 
deal does not require Microsoft to continue to distribute Java 
technologies.
    6. The deal requires Microsoft to share information on how its 
middleware and 


[[Page 25452]]


server software work together with Windows. However, 
Microsoft does not have to disclose this information for middleware 
it does not distribute separate from windows, or for middleware it 
has not trademarked. It means, if the software is included into the 
Windows package, they don't have to share any information about how 
it works with Windows. This is an easy way to hide API's from 
competitors and make sure the competitor does not have information 
needed to make its software to work with Windows reliably. Also, if 
Microsoft feels the information disclosure would harm the company's 
security, they don't have to share the information.
    7. There is no effective enforcement mechanism for restrictions 
in the deal. The group of three men, half of which will be 
controlled by Microsoft, will not be allowed to inform the public of 
their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work of the 
committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding.
    8. The deal imposes only some fines on Microsoft, but allows it 
to retain almost all of the profit gained from its unlawful 
activities. This settlement gives a way to any monopolist to brake 
the anti-trust law, just like Microsoft did, without any fear of 
losing their profits.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Oleg Efimov
    Saratoga, California
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011381

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:03pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Jonathan Hill [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am a student at Boston College, and I am upset about the 
recent settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft 
(PFJ).
    First, the PFJ does not stop Microsoft from operating as a 
monopoly. It does not force Microsoft to substansively alter its 
structure and marketing plans. The inability of the settlement to 
force Microsoft to change its business scructure makes the 
settlement pointless. Second, the settlement does not punish 
Microsoft for clearly violating anti-trust laws in the past. It 
would set a terrible standard if Microsoft was allowed to get away 
with its monopolistic and abusive tactics. Finally, the PFJ does not 
provide an effective enforcement mechanism for the weak restrictions 
it does implement.
    All in all, the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department is weak and does not fix the basic problems the suit was 
brought to correct. I urge you to do everything in your power to 
overturn the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Hill
    Brighton, Massachusetts
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011382

From: venkatesalu rajagopal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:08pm
Subject: Dear Sir/Madam,
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    The success and flourishing of Microsoft is essential for the 
economic wellbeing of the country and of individual 
citizens.Damaging such national'treasure'is only to benefit some 
companies that can not compete in the open market place and it will 
do incalculable damage to ordinary citizens.Please do not do it.
    Sincerely,
    Rajagopal



MTC-00011383

From: McKim, Patrick
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would encourage the Department of Justice to settle the 
Microsoft Case. Any further action will only be passed along to 
consumers as additional cost, and that doesn't make sense.
    Settle it!!
    Patrick McKim



MTC-00011384

From: rbrhodes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:12pm
Subject: Letter
6420 SE Winged Foot Drive Stuart, Florida 34997
January 14,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address the outcome of the Microsoft antitrust 
suit. I am in agreement with the current settlement in so far as to 
say that absolutely no further action should be taken against 
Microsoft. I believe that this antitrust suit was unfounded from the 
start. The issue at stake here as I see it is not whether or not 
Microsoft is guilty of violating antitrust laws, but is whether or 
not the state and federal governments are guilty of infringing on 
free enterprise. I am in agreement with this settlement for one 
reason only, and that is to see this suit come to an end 
immediately. I do not believe that Microsoft should have had to make 
the concessions that they have. Under the terms of the settlement 
Microsoft is required to license its Windows products out to 20 of 
the largest computer makers on identical terms, including cost. 
Additionally, they will be required to document and divulge key 
interfaces of the Windows operating system to their competitors for 
the purposes of software development. Should any of these internal 
interfaces fall under intellectual property rights, Microsoft will 
be required to grant fair license for the use of said intellectual 
properties. I believe that these restrictions are unfair to 
Microsoft, but once again I must begrudgingly support the terms of 
the settlement for the sake of further economic development and 
bringing this suit to a final resolution. I have been a long time 
user of Microsoft products, and have owned several computers over 
the years. To have


come this far only to be struck down by the jealousy of other less 
successful competitors is outrageous to me. To sum up my views on 
this issue I ask you this, where would the IT industry be today 
without the existence of Microsoft? Certainly not where it is now.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Rhodes



MTC-00011385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January15,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement reached 
between the Justice Department and Microsoft. It is my understanding 
that you are currently entertaining public comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    I know that the Microsoft matter was very difficult to resolve 
and I am sure that the proposed settlement will not make everyone 
happy. For that matter, I don't think there is any possible 
resolution to this matter that would make everyone happy, no matter 
how hard you tried. This settlement allows additional competition, 
which didn't exist before the suit, but allows Microsoft to remain a 
viable entity. I think that is best for all involved and for our 
country. The settlement is fair. Microsoft will share information 
with its competitors regarding the internal working of Windows, 
allowing them to more easily place their own programs on the 
operating system. I support the settlement. Thank you for allowing 
me to comment on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Norma Katt
    911 Canterbury Drive
    Columbia, MO 65203



MTC-00011386

From: Larry Lundquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft judgement
    This settlement that the last few states are asking for, is not 
right. The things they are asking for is not in line with what they 
have accused Microsoft of. The first settlement that the Justice 
Department has agreed to, is all the farther this case should go.
    Larry Lundquist
    1630 152nd SE
    Bellevue, Washington



MTC-00011387

From: Miller, Dale (HOU)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    Regarding the following :
    The Tunney Act review period, during which the Department of 
Justice seeks public comment on its proposed antitrust settlement 
with 9 states and Microsoft, closes Monday, January 28. The 
settlement is not guaranteed until after the review ends and the 
District Court determines whether the settlement is 


[[Page 25453]]


indeed in the 
public interest. I am in full support of the settlement terms, and 
in complete agreement with the Microsoft stance/approach to the 
settlement terms.
    Regards,
    Dale Miller
    Compaq Computer Corporation
    Platform Validation, ABG
    Phone: 281-514-1695
    Pager: 713-990-8265
    Office: 7170
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00011388

From: Michael Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was completely aghast when I recently went to several major 
retail stores (Office Depot, Best Buy, Staples among others) looking 
to purchase a laptop computer. Every laptop came bundled with 
Windows XP.
    Having read about security issues in Windows XP, I asked each 
store if I could get a laptop bundled with a different operating 
system. In particular, I asked about Linux and even Windows 2000 as 
alternate possibilities to Windows XP. In each case, I was told that 
it was not possible.
    I suspect that I could have simply purchased Linux separately in 
the hope that there would be drivers available for the hardware in 
the laptop, but this is often not the case and I likely would have 
had to spend a great deal more money to replace existing hardware 
which would be compatible to Linux.
    The bottom line here is that I had no choice at all. On December 
21, 2001, I purchased a laptop bundled with Windows XP and installed 
Windows 2000 on it to have a dual boot system. Some of the hardware 
is new enough that there are no Windows 2000 drivers for it. In 
fact, there are several devices that Windows 2000 does not recognize 
at all and I am unable to identify them.
    This is a serious problem for consumers. Microsoft's monopoly 
must be stopped. Not only do I have no choice regarding other 
vendors' operating systems, I also have no choice regarding which 
Microsoft operating system I want to use. I was forced to use 
Windows XP.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Michael Schwartz



MTC-00011389

From: Carmen A. Cancel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:14pm
Subject: case
    I can't believe the justice department is still harassing 
Microsoft. Where were you when Enron was steeling from it's stock 
holders. I can't believe how selective you can be about your cases. 
Does it have to do with the amount of money the company passes or 
doesn't pass out to the officials? I don't get a penny for this 
letter, but I say these things because I do admire a man that has 
worked so hard to make his dream come true. Get OFF Microsoft's back 
already!!!
    Thank you, Carmen A. Cancel



MTC-00011390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's close this case against Microsoft and get on with 
business. As for the fine being in the form computers with microsoft 
o/s in them, make it cash so the schools can choose which computer 
and systems they prefer and are most compatible within their 
respective schools. Also, I think the states should drop their 
suits. My concern is that the states have gotten a taste from the 
tobacco settlements and are now looking for other ways to collect 
money. The fact is the lawyer friends of the politicians are 
probably the ones who are making out the most!!! Bob Hanson



MTC-00011391

From: Edwina Houlmiere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think that it would be in the best interest of the American 
economy to settle the Microsoft case and get on with life.
    Edwina and Patrick Houlmiere



MTC-00011392

From: Robert Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:18pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    In my opinion, it is high time to settle this case and move on 
together to help revive the economy and win the war against 
terrorism. We don't need any more of this type of antagonism towards 
business. We need to continue to move forward and concentrate on 
things that really matter.
    Robert



MTC-00011393

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:13pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
From: Kentyn Reynolds [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:12 AM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Microsoft Settlement,
    In my position as CTO of a large Internet based company I have 
the opportunity to observe the long-term effects of Microsoft's 
outrageous behavior. I have seen how Microsoft's undermining of JAVA 
and other standards has pushed the industry backwards by at least 10 
years, and cost every company that I know thousands of unnecessary 
dollars in multiple development efforts and exception level 
programming. With the latest US court ruling we now have given 
Microsoft access to infiltrate our government with millions of 
dollars of crippling technology. Microsoft should feel the maximum 
punishment of the law for their monopolistic practices. Please 
reexamine the recent rulings on this case and create justice for the 
small technology companies that legally support our government.
    Kentyn Reynolds
    CTO
    ClickAction
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw




MTC-00011394

From: Tom Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:17pm
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    I would like to applaud the justice department for finally 
settling with Microsoft. The allegations against the company, in my 
opinion, were unfounded. Let's move on and get back to business in 
the US.
    Tom Rizzo



MTC-00011395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough taxpayer money has been wasted on this unnecessary case. 
Let Microsoft and this country s computer-users get back to the 
business of participating in the good use of technology.



MTC-00011396

From: Berkland, David
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:15pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    hi
    it is time to stop the endlewss lawsuits all levels of 
government should cease trying to grab a tobacco type bonanza from 
microsoft, in fact the y would be better srerved crafting some 
legislation that would prevent these types of laywer employment 
suits from being initiated in my opinion the various state DA's use 
this case and others to further their on carears at the expense of 
the public and the victim corporations the DA's should be jailed for 
misuse of public funds



MTC-00011397

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is not the USA that is taking action against Microsoft. It Is 
the idiot Liberals and Clinton Administration that initiated this 
moronic action.



MTC-00011398

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:17pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE ADD MY VOICE TO THE MAJORITY WHO FEEL THAT THE SETTLEMENT 
IN THIS FOUR YEAR CASE WAS FAIRLY ADJUDICATED AND THE LAST THING OUR 
ECONOMY NEEDS RIGHT NOW IS MORE LITIGATION. PLEASE LET THIS MATTER 
END NOW.
    SINCERELY
    FERN LOWER



MTC-00011399

From: jerry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft should offer a version of windows that is JUST the 
operating system with NOTHING bundled into it, such as internet 
explorer. netmeeting, messenger, outlook express, etc.


[[Page 25454]]


    thank you for taking the time to read my thought on the matter



MTC-00011400

From: Danuel Colter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
    To say that over the last few years I could puke at the sheer 
idiocy of the whole bit is putting it mildly. What Microsoft as a 
Corporation that employs so very many people around the world, has 
endured is truly mind boggling garbage. To say this was a trumped up 
bunch of nonsense is putting it mildly, such money grubbing little 
idiots I had never expected from my American neighbours, but as they 
say, the lawyers are nothing short of charlatans.
    Danuel Colter
    Box 154
    Emerson, Manitoba, Canada
    R0A 0L0
    [email protected]



MTC-00011401

From: Liz McCollum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In view of all the facts--leave Microsoft alone--why bring down 
yet another company that's doing just fine without interference from 
the U.S. Government.
    Liz McCollum
    S&S Services Group, Inc.
    6222 Tower Lane Suite A-6
    Sarasota FL 34240
    941-377-4600 Phone 941-377-4610 Fax
    [email protected]
    www.snsservices.com



MTC-00011402

From: Connie Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I'm really getting tired of the courts dragging this settlement 
issue out. Microsoft has made a fair and viable solution to the 
courts. It is apparent that the only voices of protest come from 
competitors. Consumers do not and have never had a voice in this 
whole debate. Microsoft has always played fair, they have had the 
brains and know how to market their product. If other companies had 
half the smarts that Microsoft does then they wouldn't be yelling 
foul. If competitors feel that this settlement will give even more 
visiblity to the consumers then maybe they should step up to the 
plate and donate an equal amount. Fair is fair, let's settle this 
and let Microsoft get back to making the world a much easier place 
to communicate!
    Thank you!



MTC-00011403

From: Harry Hertless
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
15128 W Amelia Drive
Goodyear, Arizona 85338
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Please finalize the antitrust case settlement as soon as 
possible and quell opposition from the nine states still attempting 
to continue litigation. This case has dragged on far to long. It has 
been conceived from political interests instead of sound economic 
ones and therefore has been flawed from the beginning. I am a 
proponent of free enterprise and believe that government should stay 
out of big business.
    Especially in this case where a company has been pushing the 
drive for innovation and growth in the technology sector. The last 
thing our ailing economy needs is lengthy litigation that hinders 
Microsoft's development. The terms of the settlement are more than 
fair, as Microsoft has agreed to disclose internal interfaces and 
protocols to competitors. They have also agreed to grant computer 
makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote non-
Microsoft software programs. It is in the best interest of the 
American Public for the settlement to occur. I urge your office to 
help make this a reality. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Hertless



MTC-00011404

From: Patel, Thakor G., MD
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: Opinion
    It is important to settle and move on. This is dragging on for a 
long time. In this time of national crisis and other priorities, 
goernment should not spend too much time on this issue. None of the 
complainers come close to what Microsoft has done for novice 
computer users. The proof of this is in some nursing homes where 
without the Microsoft Windows and packaging none of these folks will 
be able to use computers.
    T.G.Patel, MD



MTC-00011405

From: JKIRKPATRICK@PILLSBURY. COM@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This continuance of litigation is wasting my tax dollars. It is 
time to settle this litigation and move on with boosting the 
economy!
    James Kirkpatrick
    Box 1715
    Denison, TX 75021
    903-415-2576



MTC-00011406

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please just get this Microsoft case over with. I think the 
settlement is fair and should resolve this whole controversy. Enough 
tax dollars have been spent already. Leave Microsoft alone, go after 
the cable companies or somebody else.
    Thank you for your time.
    Craig Avena
    1235 Wood Ridge Dr


    Atlanta GA 30339



MTC-00011408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get on with progress!!time and technology advances in the 
competitive arena will solve any inequities in the market place!!!



MTC-00011409

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement as currently drafted. I think it 
provides a fair and workable solution and I encourage you to use the 
opportunity to bring this case to a close. Thank you.



MTC-00011410

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its time to settle this case. I think the only winners in this 
case are the lawyers. If Microsoft stops innovating the market will 
run them over. Why dont you focus the DOJ efforts on find and 
prosecuting more terrorist? instead of pounding away on Microsoft.



MTC-00011411

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this is a fair settlement. If AOL/Time warner is not a 
monopoly I don t know what is. They are the ones pressing the 
Microsoft case. The longer this case goes on the more it is hurting 
the economy of the world. Yes world not just the U.S.



MTC-00011412

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough. Take the best offer MS puts on the table and run with 
it.



MTC-00011413

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the arrangement proposed to satisfy the penalty on 
Microsoft for monopoly practice is reasonable and fair. It should be 
accepted.



MTC-00011414

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The prior e-mail may have had an incorrect State field. The 
correct state is: New York.



MTC-00011415

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


[[Page 25454]]


Date: 1/15/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day Your Honor: I don t believe that anymore prolong 
litigaions should take place in fact POOR MICROSOFT has reached a 
lengthy anti trust settlement and others have AGREED then so be it 
DROP IT compititors should not prolong it any longer it has cost TAX 
PAYERS and MICROSOFT a huge amount. I believe Microsoft took the hit 
because they are good! It s time we start looking into the PUC.co. 
CABLE co. LIGHT co. GAS co. that is where ANTI TRUST IS!!!! Thank 
You for your time.
    Peter J.Gay



MTC-00011416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam: It is time to settle the Microsoft case now. 
Further tax-payer money should not be wasted on an already immoral 
and economically disatrous case. It is immoral because the 
government again attempts to use its maximum power in the 
application of force to prevent a company from operating in 
VOLUNTARY trade with other companies and individuals. Even if a 
company has market dominance consumers have free will and can choose 
a competitor (in this case Linux or Apple). The market is open to 
competing products. Open doesn't mean a free lunch as some 
competitors would like it. As for the economic consequences less 
efficient competitors hope to prosper from the downfall of Microsoft 
and the consumer will have to foot the bill since the best company 
providing sofware can no longer afford to provide the best service 
at the lowest prices. Now Microsoft has offered a settlement and 
still some are not satisfied. It seems that they would only be 
satisfied if Microsoft would be put out of business or at least be 
far less successful. In any case as a taxpayer I refuse to support 
an immoral unjust and wasteful process. The time to settle is now so 
that our economy can begin to prosper again.
    Thank you.
    Timur Rozenfeld



MTC-00011418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a compeditor driven suit that should NEVER gone to trial 
in the first place and has caused significant damage to the entire 
Hi-Tech industry as witnessed by the free fall of stock prices since 
the suit was first announced.



MTC-00011419

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned American citizen I am voicing my opinion. It s 
high time to bring the lengthy anti-trust case against Microsoft to 
an end. Microsoft's competitors are trying to undermine this 
settlement by prolonging the process. I do not want this settlement 
undermined. Thank You David Axel



MTC-00011420

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the government ought to SETTLE this case ! It is a waste 
of the tax payers money to continue any longer. Money has been 
allocated to schools for technical advancement among other things 
and this is a good thing. Let technology continue to advance !



MTC-00011421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am satisfied with the Microsoft settlement. You should be 
pusuing America OnLine instead. They are far worse a monopoly than 
Microsoft ever was.



MTC-00011422

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this now! justice delayed is justice denied! get on with 
life and stop making lawyers rich!



MTC-00011423

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the nonsense!! Leave businesses alone! You have no business 
interfering into the free market system especially since you are 
bringing supposed legal actions in fraudulent federal courts. Why 
don't you take Microsoft into a district court of the United States 
as it demanded by the U.S. Constitution instead of in a United 
States District Court that is only authorized to function within DC 
or in one of the U.S. territories! Look it up! But then again you 
aren t honest enough to look up anything are you? 
www.texasisaliar.com The Federal Anti-Trust Acts don t say what you 
think they say so do the right thing and leave businesses alone!!



MTC-00011424

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Attorney General is abolutely correct about 
this settlement satisfying the requirements of the courts it may not 
be the result that MICROSOFT s competitors would have liked but it 
is clearly a satisfactory resolution and will allow us all to move 
forward with more important business.



MTC-00011425

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft is guilty of nothing more than 
providing extremely good products with very competetive pricing. I 
do


not feel that the using public has been hurt in any way by anti-
competetive practices. I was a user of Netscape (a competetive 
product) for several years and in fact I used it with the Windows 
Operating System. I switched to Microsoft s Internet Explorer 
because Explorer is a better product and for no other reason. It is 
true that Microsoft married their Web browser and Windows Operating 
system but that does not preclude the use of other browsers. It does 
make an efficient and outstanding package which makes a lot of 
business sense. I believe that the settlement proposed is already 
more harsh than Microsoft deserves. And it is certainly in the 
public interest to conclude this suit and move on. The Microsoft 
competitors have already received more concessions than are 
warranted.



MTC-00011426

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of the negotiated settlement except that it doesn t do 
enough to protect the victim (Microsoft) form the clutches of greedy 
state's attorneys who after the tobacco settlement think they have a 
license to steal.



MTC-00011427

From: Joey Lesh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not find the settlement with Microsoft to be satisfying to 
me as a consumer. In fact, some parts of it are akin to throwing the 
rabbit into briar patch. Furthermore, the settlement does little to 
prevent further illegal and anti-competitive actions by Microsoft. I 
urge you to continue the litigation with Microsoft.
    Joseph C. Lesh
    Software Engineer



MTC-00011428

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The so-called settlement is just Microsoft s way of foisting 
overvalued obsolete and sub-par hardware & software off on a public 
that would not normally buy such material it lets them increase 
their market share dump unsellable product at minimal cost and get a 
massive tax write-off for the overvalued garbage without ever 
admitting to or abstaining from their usual anti-competitive 
monopolistic practices. It does not matter to me if they are broken 
up or remain whole--they need to be brought to heel made to behave 
and financially punished for their unethical practices!



MTC-00011429

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned American I am troubled by the actions taken over 
the past several years by the Justice Dept of the U.S. The time has 
come to end the expensive and time consuming case against MicroSoft. 
Please 


[[Page 25456]]

bring this case to a quick resolution. The American public 
has paid enough for what little has been and will be gained by this 
on-going case. It is clearly time to quickly and quietly let this 
case slip into history as another mistake made by the Clinton White 
House. Thank you for your prompt attention in this matter.
    Charles B. Todd



MTC-00011430

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You must end this discussion and enslavement of Microsoft now 
before YOU kill the whole technical industry. Microsoft has been 
punished enough. It is only those who want to punish a great company 
is what is holding this up. Let Microsoft contribute as they have 
said and tell those other states to forget it and stop now. We the 
public will only suffer further punishment if You the goverment 
persist in punishing Microsoft further.



MTC-00011431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a follower and stockholder of Microsoft for no less 
than 12 years. I beginning to lose faith in the American Enterprise 
System and feel that our basic American lifestyle is being 
undermined by greedy lawyers and politicians who really no nothing 
about the struggles of technology enterprise and who want to turn 
everything good into a legal battle for money and power. How did 
lawyers suddenly become the directors of our lives. What s happening 
in this arena is destroying the financial resources I use to support 
my family. We are in dire financial trouble because of this terrible 
fiasco. There is something terribly wrong in America today.--USAF 
Viet Nam Era Veteran Veteran



MTC-00011432

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Hesse With regard to the Microsoft case--enough is enough. 
It s time to drop any further litigation. Microsoft has been 
penalized more that it should have. I have wondered if this case was 
a witch hunt. Just to show who was in charge. Thank you for 
considering my request.
    Albert R. McKenzie



MTC-00011433

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is another instance of dragging feet. I think enough is 
enough and we need to move on. Let s get this matter of with. LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE and move onto issues --real issues. I believe that 
if it weren t for Microsoft we wouldn t be where we are at today 
with our technology. I m glad that MS is not going to be split up 
but we need to get on with things. You know before all this we ran 
Netscapes browser at home --but we have since than switched to only 
running IE as we feel it s a better browser. I don t see a monopoly 
here I see competitors that might have an inferior product and want 
the help of the Government to boost their product. Let s drop this 
shanigans and get on with the business.



MTC-00011434

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs: I think US Government VS Micro Soft is a travesty of 
justice and a crime against the American public. Micro Soft is being 
punished for selling an ever better product for less and less. 
[Nobody points a gun at anyone for buying Windows the reason being 
they buy Windows because it works.] Remember our American motto .... 
with Liberty and Justice for all. .... A trust to work has to keep 
out competition from it s point in the market by force or the threat 
of force. i.e. the only way that this would be possible. i.e.to make 
it illegal by government fiat for anyone to compete against this 
business. Our US Mail service is a monopoly. No one but the 
incompetent US Post Office can deliver mail at ever worsening 
service and ever rising prices. And look at the result. It is not 
Micro Soft which gets better and better for less and less. We should 
be ever so grateful to Micro Soft instead of punishing them for 
being good at what they do. And to make what Micro Soft does so well 
a crime is first....UN-JUST....and second it deprives we citizens of 
our...FREEDOM... to choose the product we want at the price we want 
to pay. To continue to harass this manificent company is a crime 
beyond reason. Stop it if you have any decency left. Sincerely and 
with great contempt to the miserable scum who brought this crime of 
anti-trust against this manificent company Micro Soft. I remain
    Sincerely J.
    Billy VerPlanck



MTC-00011435

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly wish government was less involved in many aspects of 
business. I believe the consumer will decide what products do well 
by their desire to purchase or not. Where would we be without 
microsofts inventions? America was founded on the idea of free 
enterprise. Let it be. The tax payer should not have to continue to 
support these government actions. If competitors come up with a 
better product it will sell.
    Lets let the public consumer decide which products it uses and 
how. L.H.



MTC-00011436

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Some Microsoft publicity outfit gave me a call (along with 
hundreds of thousands of calls to other people?) and wanted me to go


to this web site (www.techleaders.org) and fill out this form in 
support of Microsoft. There is no doubt that Microsoft is a very 
powerful corporation that makes quite a bit of money. The problem is 
that Microsoft plays hardball by punishing its partners in business 
if they don t toe the mark. They also seem to have an amazing 
control of judges --- imagine a settlement that causes schools to 
give up competing products in favor of Microsoft products! This must 
REALLY hurt Microsoft to see the anemic competitor (Apple) kicked 
out of one of its few remaining markets. I view the games between 
judges and Microsoft as more of a test of the corruption of U.S. 
judges than as a case about Microsoft. Microsoft is only one of a 
long string of well-heeled outfits that can purchase the kind of 
justice they feel they want from our crooked judges.--If only we had 
an interest in following the money trail to our federal judges...



MTC-00011437

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the gov.should settle the case against microsoft. the gov.&the 
states seems to want to run microsoft that will cost the comsumers 
lots of money.microsoft has a lot of great products.I buy them 
because I like them not because their is no other choise



MTC-00011438

From: Jeanine Leone
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled with no further litigation.
    Jeanine Leone



MTC-00011439

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get off Microsoft s back! A strong Microsft is good for America.



MTC-00011440

From: J.REID
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The comprehensive agreement should be implemented as soon as 
possible to free up the courts and lawyers for other matters.
    Yours truly,
    Jeanette Miles Reid



MTC-00011441

From: Brett Glass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 2002
Attn: 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:


[[Page 25457]]


    The proposed settlement in US v. Microsoft/State of New York et 
al v. Microsoft has shaken my personal faith in the integrity and 
competence of the US Department of Justice. It is not at all in the 
public interest and hence should be roundly rejected by the Court.
    The proposed settlement is riddled with loopholes which would 
allow Microsoft to continue many of its existing anticompetitive 
practices and to begin engaging in new ones. For example, Section 
IV, Paragraph U of the proposed settlement states, The software code 
that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be 
determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
    This clause allows Microsoft the ability to engage in the anti-
competitive practice of ``bundling'' merely by claiming that a 
product distributed for the sole purpose of destroying markets or 
businesses is part of Windows.
    Likewise, Section III, Paragraph J of the proposed settlement 
states: J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of a particular installation or group of installations 
of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights 
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without 
limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or 
(b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft 
product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency 
of competent jurisdiction.
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no 
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of 
intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for 
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or 
shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, 
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication 
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to 
test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft 
specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications 
shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems 
and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
    This paragraph would allow Microsoft to make any number of 
excuses for failure to disclose its APIs and communications 
protocols to any competitor. For example, clause 1(a) would permit 
Microsoft to claim that its protocols had to remain secret for 
security reasons, even if the alleged security problems were due to 
bugs in Microsoft's own software. Clause 2(a) could allow Microsoft 
to condition the release of information on an intrusive and 
disruptive license audit of the recipient's premises. Clause 2(c) 
would prevent acccess by groups which developed software 
collaboratively rather than as part of a formal business. Clause 
2(d) could allow Microsoft to delay the release of competitive 
products, obtain advance information regarding competitors' product 
plans, and/or create barriers to market entry by imposing 
prohibitively expensive testing requirements.
    These are only some of the immense and egregious defects in the 
proposed settlement which would allow the company to continue to 
engage in the anti-competitive practices which motivated the filing 
of this case. The fact that there are so many defects in the 
proposed settlement has raised suspicion among members of the 
general public that it was politically motivated; that it was 
authored by, and/or for the benefit of, Microsoft; and that it 
represents the fruits of Microsoft's infinitelyt deep legal war 
chest and lobbying power rather than anything remotely resembling a 
remedy.
    The Court would be remiss in its responsibility to protect the 
public interest, and would permanently impact Americans' faith in 
government and in our free enterprise system, if it accepted this 
settlement rather than directly and quickly addressing the ongoing 
anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices described so eloquently 
by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. The Court should roundly and 
firmly reject the proposed settlement and instead impose conduct 
and/or structural remedies that have at least a reasonable chance of 
success.
    Sincerely,
    Brett Glass
    P.O. Box 1693
    Laramie, WY 82073-1693



MTC-00011442

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already. Microsoft has helped put a computer in 70% of 
the homes in the US and now it s getting punished for it. The 
government has spent millions of taxpayers money because some 
companies like AOL are whining. Please end this waste of taxpayers 
money and accept the settlement deal



MTC-00011443

From: Thatcher, Conley S
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a private citizen, who owns Microsoft stock, and who uses 
their products daily, I have a strong interest in seeing this 
antitrust case finished. I think the settlement worked out with the 
U.S. DOJ is fair and should end the issue. I sincerely hope that 
this issue isn't dragged out interminably in the courts of the nine 
holdout states. It would not be good for the consumers or the 
country.
    Conley Thatcher
    120 Laurelwood Ave
    Placentia, CA 92870
    [email protected]




MTC-00011444

From: Dan Damon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please get this case settled. Microsoft's latest settlement 
offer should be ample punishment considering the hugh expense they 
have already incurred in defending themselves from over aggressive 
government intervention. Wedbush Morgan Securities employees may not 
accept any orders or instructions to buy or sell securities of any 
kind by e-mail. All such instructions and orders must be placed by 
telephone or in person with your Investment Executive. The 
information contained within this e-mail is based on information 
available and believed to be accurate at the time it was prepared. 
It reflects the opinions and beliefs of the individual sender and 
not necessarily those of Wedbush Morgan Securities.



MTC-00011445

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let s put an end to this issue with the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft. The technology industry needs a resolution the 
economy needs a resolution and most of all the taxpaying citizens 
need a resolution. Microsoft has made an offer for settlement that 
is more than fair. Let s be realistic the issue is being perpetuated 
by competitors of Microsoft. If there is any doubt of that just 
refer to the January 15 2002 comments in USA Today by the CEO s of 
both Sun Microsystems and Oracle.



MTC-00011446

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please setle the Microsoft Issue immediately.



MTC-00011447

From: Jay Tucker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Officials,
    I am writing this letter to express my support for the proposed 
settlement. The ongoing legal action has severely depressed the 
technology industry as a whole, and notably hindered Microsoft in 
particular. The settlement proposed takes appropriate action, but 
leaves the freedom to innovate in the hands of Microsoft, and does 
not set any untoward precedents for the industry as a whole.
    So far, I have been extremely impressed with the DoJ's handling 
of the case over the last few months. I look forward to a speedy 
resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Tucker
    Technology Coordinator
    St. Luke's School



MTC-00011448

From: Raypholtz, Jeannette


[[Page 25457]]


To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I am told that our voice counts in determining whether 
settlement will be reached during the review period of the Tunny 
Act, ending January 28, 2002. I think it is now in the best interest 
of the company (Microsoft), their shareholders, and the tax payers 
money to settle this antitrust suit once and for all. After all this 
time, why can (9) states not accept the terms of the settlement, and 
continue to squeeze Microsoft for more retribution for something 
they have already paid dearly for. Please consider my opinion, and 
please, let this long drawn out case be settled.
    Jeannette Raypholtz
    Raypholtz, Jeannette.vcf>>



MTC-00011449

From: vera reitmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this as soon as possible and lets get on with our 
lives. Don't let this drag on and on!!



MTC-00011450

From: Clete Bayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough!
    Microsoft and the American economy have been punished more than 
enough. Let? s get this settled and be glad it's over.
    Clete Bayer



MTC-00011451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The time has come to put an end to this endless badgering of a 
great company. Time will show that this ``monopoly'' is temporary 
and the settlement that has been arrived at is reasonable. Any 
company that sits on it's laurels and tries to throw its weight 
around will soon fall by the ways side in the fast changing would of 
computer software. Microsoft has a competitive advantage for now. So 
be it.
    Tom Barnard



MTC-00011452

From: Hawkins Duane S TSgt SMC DET 11 /CITS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:21pm
Subject: RE: Action Against Microsoft
    I have a suggestion which I believe will benefit consumers and 
which seems to have been overlooked, up to this point.
    1. Forbid Microsoft from issuing software under an ``OEM'' 
license. Current Microsoft OEM licenses forbid users (and, now that 
product activation is here, prevent users) from ever installing the 
software on any machine other than the one with which the software 
was purchased, EVEN IF THE ORIGINAL MACHINE HAS BEEN DESTROYED OR 
THE SOFTWARE REMOVED FROM THE MACHINE. In effect, if a user buys a 
computer from an OEM with a Microsoft product installed, then 
chooses at a later date to perform a major hardware upgrade or 
replace the hardware, in order to use the SAME software, that 
individual must purchase a new license, in addition to the one he 
has already paid for, even though the original license goes unused.
    2. Order Microsoft to make reparations to consumers forced to 
repeat purchases of Microsoft software due to hardware upgrade / 
obsolescense by issuing retail license keys to holders of OEM 
software. In the case of software which is included on a ``System 
Restoration Disk'' which cannot be used on machines other than the 
one with which it was purchased, order Microsoft to provide full 
retail copies of the Microsoft media included with the system, in 
exchange for the original system restoration CD. This exchange could 
be implemented through the hardware OEMs' support divisions, but 
should be paid for by Microsoft.
    I believe that Microsoft has profited unfairly by coercing 
hardware vendors into bundling Microsoft software with their 
products in such a way as to force users to purchase new copies of 
the software every time they upgrade their hardware.
    Purchasers of new systems are ordinarily unaware that such 
restrictions have been placed on their use of the software, unless 
they are accustomed reading the fine print of a license agreement 
which may span several pages, and which may still leave users with 
the question of software transferability unanswered.
    Note that this measure would not prevent Microsoft from 
enforcing its ``One user one license'' software licensing policy. It 
would merely protect users from having to purchase new software each 
time they upgrade their hardware.
    Sincerely,
    Duane S. Hawkins
    [email protected] Software Developer



MTC-00011453

From: Bill Christy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    In my opinion, the original agreement is enough. If it had not 
been for Microsoft, our computer technology would not be in the 
advanced condition that it is . We would still be seeing 
corporations fighting over what standards that the industry should 
use. Each had their own adjenda. Microsoft took all the ends and put 
them together and made it work. Now it is being condemned for doing 
what needed to be done.
    The States that are not settling for two reasons. First is 
trying to get preferred treatment for Companies in their states. 
Second is just greed.
    Lets get this settlement over and get back to business.
    Best regards,
    William B. Christy



MTC-00011454

From: Mutasem Abu Remaileh
To: Microsoft ATR


Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The software industry would not be where it is today without 
Microsoft. What the government calls illegal bundling of products is 
really a good step forward that makes using a computer easier for 
the consumers. As any other company Microsoft is trying to ensure 
its competitiveness in a very competitive market. Lets stop this and 
move our economy and technology forward.
    Mutasem



MTC-00011455

From: Chris Brand
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: The tabled agreement is NOT fair on consumers
    I'm writing to express my opinions on the proposed settlement, 
as permitted by the Tunney Act.
    Open Source / Free Software Section III.D and III.E, which 
require Microsoft to divulge details of interfaces (APIs and 
Protocols), in order to allow competing products to be developed, 
does not appear to recognize Open Source Software (which is often 
available free of charge and often has no recognisable company or 
other organisation in control of its development) as an ``entity'' 
to which these interface details should be available. This despite 
the fact that Microsoft has been documented as recognising that Open 
Source Software presents a significant threat (see for example, the 
``Halloween Memo'' by Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil).
    For example, the SAMBA project (www.samba.org) is designed to 
allow other Operating Systems to interoperate with Microsoft-
dominated networks. Currently, they have to reverse-engineer all 
Microsoft protocols in order to create their software, which 
necessarily limits and delays its functionality, making the use of 
non-Microsoft Operating Systems in a Microsoft-dominated network 
less attractive. If Microsoft were required to divulge interface 
details to developers of Open Source software, projects like SAMBA 
would make the interoperation of Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
machines much more achievable, and hence encourage competition. 
Because most of these Open Source projects do not have a corporate 
sponsor, there is no entity available to pay a ``reasonable and non-
discriminatory license fee''. Note also that ``reasonable'' to a 
multi-billion dollar corporation has a completely different meaning 
than ``reasonable'' to an unemployed software developer who creates 
an Open Source project in order to enhance his coding skills.
    The ideal solution to this problem is to change the mechanism by 
which these APIs and protocols are made available--rather than 
requiring Microsoft to license them, instead require them to 
*publish* them, such that they are available to all, in a similar 
manner to the publication of the standards for the Internet, which 
facilitates the communication of a wide range of different computers 
from different manufacturers, running different Operating Systems.
    A similar problem exists where the API or protocol in question 
relates to Intellectual 

[[Page 25459]]


Property rights of Microsoft. Again, 
providing ``reasonable'' licenses is not sufficient to allow Open 
Source projects to use the interfaces. I suggest that in these 
cases, Microsoft be required to license the related Intellectual 
Property free of charge to any implementation where the source code 
is made available to the public (i.e. available for download free of 
charge on the internet).
    Education Market
    Although I didn't find anything in the documents online, I have 
read that Microsoft may provide hardware and software to schools for 
free as part of the settlement. This is patently ridiculous, if 
true. The Education market is one of the few where Microsoft has had 
difficulty due to Apple's dominance. This would not be a punishment, 
but an opportunity for them to break into a new market.
    Thank you for taking the time to read these comments.
    Chris Brand [Software Technical Lead--Wireless Systems]
    Spectrum Signal Processing Inc.
    t 604.421.5422 // f 604.421-1764
    mailto:[email protected]
    www.spectrumsignal.com
    Confidential information may be contained in this message. If 
you are not the addressee indicated in this message please destroy 
this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.



MTC-00011456

From: Grehan, Yvonne
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: LAW SUIT
    It is TIME to settle this case and get on with the business of 
BUSINESS. It is in the best interest of the American economy to get 
beyond this stumbling block and focus attention on REPAIR, 
OPPORTUNITY and SUCCESS. The damage done by this law suit has gone 
far beyond Microsoft and has impacted negatively numerous areas of 
our domestic and global business sectors for too long. LET'S MOVE 
ON.
    Please SETTLE.
    Thank you.
    Yvonne Grehan



MTC-00011457

From: Joyce Cuyar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets settle this afair and move on with our lives. This 
settlement is fair to the consumer and good for the economy. Too 
much time, money and effort has already been expended.
    Joyce Cuyar . Owner
    Pro-Search Prof. Recruiting
    PO Box 372 . Jackson Center . PA . 16133
    Phone: (724) 475-4420 . Fax: (724) 475-3519 . Email: 
[email protected] .
    http://www.pro-search.net
    Charter Member of TOP ECHELON NETWORK OF RECRUITERS Charter 
Member of US RECRUITERS (membership by invitation only).



MTC-00011458

From: Larry Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the terms of the review agreement: I am unequivocally opposed 
to further legislation. The so-called ``monopoly'' did not come 
about by covert means but by the public, the users selecting in the 
market place the software that best suited them. In the beginning 
there where a myriad of competitors, what did Microsoft do that was 
illegal except provide software at a price most of us could afford 
that did 90% of the things we wanted 90% of the time for 90% of what 
we wanted to pay. The competitors, whose products could not then and 
certainly can't now, have resorted to litigation to overturn a free 
market decision.
    No more litigation, settle now.
    Larry Thompson 1
    1801 China Spring Rd Waco, Texas 76708
    (254) 867 2615 [email protected]



MTC-00011459

From: Kelley Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a lawyer, an activist, nor am I exceptionally well 
informed as to the specifics of the proposed settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. However I would urge those 
involved on the government side of this case to settle quickly and 
with as little punitive action towards Microsoft as possible. My 
feelings are that Microsoft is very successful because they sell 
something that may consumers and businesses want, not because they 
are evil or unlawful. In nature diversity is good and in our 
capitalistic system, competition is good. When one entity is 
successful they should not be punished to protect those that were 
not as successful. I believe that this case is more about protecting 
the competitors of Microsoft rather than the consumers.
    It is good to have many companies supplying cars, appliances and 
even computers. It is not necessarily good to have many sources of 
the standards that allows them to operate. Imagine if each washing 
machine had different power requirements, different plumbing 
attachments etc. The cost to install and operate any one would be 
higher. Microsoft is supplying a base standard that is allowing 
people and companies to communicate in ways that would be simply 
impossible if it were not for the consistency in operating systems 
and office utilities that microsoft provides.
    Our economy is struggling to overcome a number of negative 
factors. Please do not add another by drawing out this senseless 
process.
    Thank you for considering my opinion,
    Kelley Jones
    Austin, Texas



MTC-00011460

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do whatever is necessary to approve the proposed 
settlement as proposed. It's time to move on.




MTC-00011461

From: Mark Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Department,
    Get off Microsoft's back. Spend your time and our money bringing 
to justice true and real violators of the Constitution and anti-
trust laws. Microsoft should be admired for their success not 
attacked for it. This pettiness of the Federal Government and 
Justice Department is not only unbecoming but borders on un-
American.
    Respectfully,
    Mark Price



MTC-00011462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I favor acceptance of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Antitrust Litigation.
    Marco Spani
    Commercial Properties Northwest, Inc.
    500 Union Street, Suite 530
    Seattle, WA 98101
    206-650-0852 phone
    206-624-8584 fax



MTC-00011463

From: Jennifer Holms
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attached is my letter on behalf of the Microsoft settlement. 
Please include it as part of the official record.
    Thanks.
    Jennifer Holms
    11246 NE 145th St.
    Kirkland, WA 98034
    425-488-9038
    11246 NE 145th Street Kirkland, WA 98034-1015
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    January 12, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Justice Department have spent three years in 
court and a tremendous amount of resources on the antitrust case. I 
was pleased to learn that a settlement was reached and that this 
case may soon come to a conclusion. If this case is ended both sides 
will be able to return to more important priorities. Microsoft has 
agreed under this settlement to major concessions and changes. Under 
this agreement Microsoft will share their internal interfaces with 
competitors, which is an unprecedented release of information by a 
software firm to competitors. Microsoft also has agreed to end any 
contractual restrictions that would possibly harm competitors. With 
these provisions in the settlement there is no reason to continue 
this case, as some special interests would like. Please end this 
case and the wasteful flow of resources to fight it by the Justice 
Department and Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Holms


[[Page 25460]]





MTC-00011464

From: John E. Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In accordance with the Tunney Act review period, I wish to 
register the following opinion:
    I feel strongly that the proposed settlement is not adequate. As 
a forced consumer of Microsoft products, which are overpriced and 
inherently defective, a breakup of the Microsoft corporation would 
permit free market competition and price competitive, interactive 
operative units to fit my needs.
    Thank you,
    John Burns



MTC-00011465

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:25pm
Subject: Settlement--Microsoft
    I've read the terms, think they are reasonable. People I've 
talked to, stockholders or not, want this to be settled. Enough 
time--enough money !
    Lorette Schneider
    17914 23rd Lane NE
    Shoreline WA 98155



MTC-00011466

From: Richard Wessels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although, I find the actions being proposed in this settlement 
harsh and far reaching as well as possibly damaging to the company 
they are targeted at. I find the alternatives far worse. I find it 
reprehensible that the nine dessenting states that agreeded to 
combind their case with that of the DoJ now want to impose even 
harsher restrictions on Microsoft. These ``honerable'' people are 
acting only in the interest of the companies in their states. Utah = 
Novell, California = Netscape, Apple, and a host of others, and Mass 
= AOL Time Warner (possibly the largest single threat to competition 
that exists today). Something must be done to stop this madness. And 
although I did not agree with the settlement as it put way to much 
power in the hands of government officials who know nothing of the 
computer industry. I would rather have the lesser of the two evils 
then to have one of the largest employers in the country ruined by 
over zealous lawyers getting paid off by other companies.
    Richard Wessels
    Durham, NC



MTC-00011467

From: Jeff Pearce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wanted to take an opportunity to voice my support for the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement. I think that the settlement is more 
than fair, and I also believe that settling this case now rather 
than later is in the best interests of consumers.
    It is my belief that this case hanging over one of America's 
greatest success stories is part of the reason our economy has been 
suffering for over a year. In that light, I believe that delaying 
this case any further only benefits Microsoft's competitors at the 
expense of everyone else. It's no coincidence that most of the 
states who are pushing for a stronger settlement are also home to 
Microsoft's biggest competitors.
    It is my desire as a citizen and taxpayer that my government 
does what is right for the majority of Americans and approves the 
current settlement.
    Sincerely
    Jeff Pearce
    Sammamish, WA



MTC-00011468

From: Charlotte Lesan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Settle the dispute with Microsoft! The nine states involved no 
doubt have companies intent on further damage to Microsoft or even 
have the intention of driving Microsoft to Canada. Originally states 
with jealous competitors of Bill Gates and Microsoft instituted the 
suit and our stock market has been spiraling downward ever since. 
Put and end to this foolishness and allow the country to recover.
    Yours truly,
    Charlotte H. Lesan (Mrs. James E.)



MTC-00011469

From: Robert Lantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement.
    Robert J. Lantz 5249 S. Joplin Pl, Tulsa, OK 74135



MTC-00011470

From: Joseph Maccaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle with Microsoft.
    Get on with national crisis business.
    Joseph Maccaro



MTC-00011471

From: Andrew Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi please break Microsoft into at least two parts. Their 
monopolistic practices are spiraling out of control and the proposed 
``settlement'' actually does more harm than good. Have you looked at 
Windows XP yet?
    The answer is right there in plain view in XP. Thank you for 
your time.
    Andrew J Fox



MTC-00011472

From: Behtash, Behzad
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I would like to add my voice to support the proposed settlement 
terms between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I truly 
believe that these terms are in the best interest of consumers and 
our country. I believe that


DoJ's limited resources are best utilized in dealing with more 
pressing issues at this point and the current terms of the 
settlement will insure fair and open competition in the marketplace. 
In my view, most of those opposed to this settlement are direct 
competitors to Microsoft who would rather gain a competitive 
advantage in the courts and at the expense of taxpayers instead of 
doing so in the marketplace. That should never be the objective of 
an antitrust case.
    Behzad Behtash
    Oakland, CA



MTC-00011473

From: Ralph Hudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get this Microsoft litigation settled. America needs to move on 
from attacking legitimate business. DOJ time is better spent chasing 
ENRON. They are REAL criminals.
    Ralph Hudson
    5174 Apple Road
    Springdale AR 72762
    501-750-3488
    [email protected]



MTC-00011474

From: Charles Guatney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:18pm
Subject: What is the problem?
    Why is the government even involved with this issue? Microsoft 
works as a company, bringing wealth and success to the nation and 
countless hundreds of thousands of people who rely on what MS 
produces. To have the imperial federal government intrude on such 
matters defies logic. Microsoft produces wealth, whilst the imperial 
federal levithan consumes wealth.
    Get out of this issue and, instead, promote Microsoft's well 
being. The federal government should stop consuming the nation's 
intellectual and financial resources.
    Charles L. Guatney, Professor Emeritus
    Central Washington University
    445 Chatuge Trail
    Hiawassee, Georgia 30546
    706-896-6065



MTC-00011475

From: Beverly Ann Sowell, REALTOR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This lawsuit should be settled NOW on the terms agreed. Let 
Microsoft give computers to schools as their ``punishment.'' I feel 
this lawsuit existed because of competitors using the government to 
attack Microsoft. Microsoft has done extremely good things for me 
and for computer users at very reasonable prices. Leave Microsoft 
alone, so it can continue innovating good products and contributing 
to the IT revolution.



MTC-00011476

From: Lalitha Mahajan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft's side win.


[[Page 25461]]




MTC-00011477

From: Jan-Erik Rottinghuis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: MSN settlement
    Dear sirs:
    Job protection is surely on the minds of Attorney generals.their 
own? Can we just get on with innovation and competition: do it in 
the marketplace please, not the court rooms. The only people to 
benefit are not the consumers but the lawyers.
    Regards
    Jan-Erik Rottinghuis
    President & CEO
    PubliCARD, Inc.
    Office +1-212-651-31.19
    US Mobile +1-917-691-54.61
    GSM +33-609.617.787
    E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00011478

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft
    The point of antitrust investigation is to protect the public 
interest from businesses that abuse the customer. Microsoft has 
always sold an excellent product at well below fair market prices. 
Take Windows XP for example, it's priced less than $200 while its 
biggest competitor "Linux" sells for over $300 and the origin of 
Linux was a "free" program. How can this be monopolistic? DOJ, 
please don't screw up another business like you did to AT&T. That 
"breakup" sure didn't do much for the customer.
    Jim Krass
    1226 Main St.
    Windermere, FL 34786



MTC-00011479

From: rcw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:26pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please get off Microsoft and all the other business people whose 
efforts make life more of a joy. I am sick of a bunch of lawyers and 
politicians becoming the blood suckers of the business world. Get 
off now. Dick Welch. 6810 Rocky Road Blanco Texas. 78606.



MTC-00011480

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I firmly believe that it is absolutely important to proceed with 
the proposed settlement and avoid further litigation which, in my 
opinion, hurts our economy.
    Sincerely yours
    M. Bernegger



MTC-00011481

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement proposals of Microsoft go beyond that recommended by 
the Court of Appeals. In the interest of fairness--and the economy 
of the United States--this matter needs to be closed. I urge you to 
accept the settlement proposals of Microsoft without further delay.
    Jerry Effenberger
    17511 32nd. Ave. N.E.
    Seattle, Washington 98155



MTC-00011482

From: Scott McNairy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's competitors are wishing that they had and trying to 
create ground to stand on by politically pressing on thru their host 
state's attorney generals with this litigation that claims that 
Microsoft is a Monopoly. But the fact remains that if you ask these 
companies who their number one competitor is--they will tell you 
Microsoft. Not because Microsoft is a monopoly but because Microsoft 
can do it all--on any device, any time, and anywhere. The lawsuit 
should not proceed any further against Microsoft to pad the pockets 
of Microsoft's competitors.



MTC-00011483

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft and DOJ crafted settlement goes beyond what was 
needed for a settlement. It should be accepted and the remaining 
states should accept it too, although they will not be satisfied 
until Microsoft is dismantled to the benefit of Sun and AOL who the 
dissenting states claim as plaintiffs. The true plaintiffs should be 
consumers but consumers are not considered by the dissenting states. 
The only concern the dissenting states have are SUN and AOL. Sun and 
AOL own the Attorney Generals in those dissenting states. And this 
`bought and paid for' justice is not in the public interest. The 
dissenting states should not be listened to as they will only settle 
when Microsoft is destroyed.
    However antitrust is not about propping up competitors and such 
further sanctions against Microsoft, such as forcing Microsoft to 
fully disclose its software source code or breaking the company into 
pieces, should not be entertained.
    Additional measures are not required.
    Thank You,
    Bruce Garrick
    Sr. Application Developer
    Total info Services
    88-634-9942 x2484
    [email protected]
    ``In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about 
life: it goes on.''--Robert Frost



MTC-00011484

From: Dwain Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This note is in regards to the Microsoft Settlement. It is my 
belief the settlement that has been proposed punishes Microsoft far 
more that is deserved. I consider Microsofts' actions to be nothing 
more than hard business tactics and they succeeded based on public 
demand. Nevertheless, the poposed settlement calls for support plan 
to our


nations schools, this will provide badly needed resources and has no 
long term affect on the use of Microsoft products. They will 
continue to succeed based on their features and the public demand 
for those features. If they fail to provide needed features, their 
sales will decline. Apple Computer made an attempt in the late 80's 
to influence our nations young with a program that provided deeply 
discounted equipment to students. History shows that this attempt 
failed; computer users and business will use the solutions that are 
cost effective and that provide interoperability amount all 
programs. The company that provides this will attract new customers.
    As a data processing professional, I am well aware of the speed 
at which new software and features are being developed and deployed. 
The courts seem to find themselves in a position of hearing 
testimony and making rulings based on (obsolete) technology.
    It is in the best interest of the USA economy, of the Microsoft 
Shareholders, and of Microsoft to settle this and move on.



MTC-00011485

From: Marshall A. Brown II
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe as a citizen of this country that further litigation 
serves no purpose but to waste my tax dollars and does not do what 
is important for the economy. Why waste Millions in tax revenues 
that could be used for the war effort or education in this country, 
when the benefit to be gained ``Might'' lower the price of the OS a 
few dollars and save the average consumer, with a PC, $10 over 
several years? and of course $10 to the price of a $600 makes little 
difference.
    Marshall Brown II
    Dir. of Business Development



MTC-00011486

From: Joyce Harness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:32pm
Subject: Msft case
    I feel this case should be settled once and for all. Msft has 
made tremendous contributions to consumers, have helped a lot of 
people and it is time to stop the nine states from continuing this 
suit.
    Thank you.
    Joyce Harness
    3015 NW 73rd Seattle, WA 98117
    206-784-9126



MTC-00011487

From: Terry Moore-SPS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think one only needs to look at the states that are opposed to 
this settlement to understand that most of them are more concerned 
in protecting Microsoft's competitors than they are in protecting 
the general public. Utah and Mass. are prime examples of this! 
Microsoft and other high technology companies have lead our economy 
for the past 9 years to new heights. 


[[Page 25462]]


Now that the economy is 
sluggish to say the least, let move on and let Microsoft lead again 
rather than wallowing around in this litigation hogwash we have seen 
for the past 2 years. This is a fair settlement for all parties 
involved including the general public.
    Regards
    Terry Moore



MTC-00011488

From: Jim Hurst
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/15/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    To Whom if May Concern:
    I strongly support the settlement of the Microsoft litigation in 
accordance with the agreement reached with the DOJ. Further 
litigation is non cost effective and a waste of taxpayer money. 
Thank you.
    James R. Hurst
    2847 Butter Creek Drive
    Pasadena, CA 91107



MTC-00011489

From: George Gillespie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It would be my greatest hope that this case against Microsoft be 
settled soon. That way we can get on with our lives and let 
Microsoft be free to innovate, with the result of MSFT hiring more 
people and helping the US Economy rebound a little faster.
    Sincerely, George R. Gillespie



MTC-00011490

From: John (038) Dorothy Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Sirs: Microsoft software has been a boon to me since I started 
late on PCs and now am 84. To have software on my PC that is all 
coordinated(with no language problems) makes it easy for my wife & I 
to pursue our genealogy and family history projects. The ``others'' 
only cover small areas and are complicated, both in installing, but 
in maintaining. If you want to go after monopolies take on people 
like AOL, QWEST and the various cable companies.
    Just leave our good software alone!
    Thank you,
    Wilbur T & Dorothy H Johnston [email protected]



MTC-00011491

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Reneta B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express an opinion to the judge of the federal 
trial court considering the Microsoft settlement. I have been told 
that I can file written comments with the United States Department 
of Justice by January 28, 2002, and that those comments can be sent 
by email. I am concerned over a decision by Microsoft that impacts 
our firm. I believe it is an example of Microsoft wielding 
unreasonable power over 3rd-party software through the non-level 
playing field approach of their operating systems.
    I am the Corporate Secretary of Milliman USA, Inc. We are a 
nationwide (and international) firm of consultants and actuaries. We 
started in Seattle in the 1940's, and have grown to nearly 2000 
employees in over 30 offices. Computing is key to our business. We 
predominantly use Microsoft operating systems and office software. 
We use Lotus Notes for email and groupware. We chose Notes a number 
of years ago because of its unique capabilities. It has become 
integral to our business function over the years. Our consultants 
work long hours, both in the office and (at times) at home. Our 
agreement with Lotus allows our employees to have Notes on their 
home computers as well as on their office machine. Notes and 
Microsoft operating systems have always coexisted well together.
    We have been made aware that Microsoft will end its support of 
Notes on its XP home version. They say it is a business application. 
It is interesting that the biggest competitor for Notes is Microsoft 
Outlook. Microsoft is not declaring Outlook to be a business 
application.
    If Microsoft is successful in their strategy, and Notes does not 
work on the XP home version, we may need to provide our employees 
with an expensive upgrade to XP professional for their homes. Not 
only is this costly, but our employees will have to give up features 
of the XP home version that are aimed at the family: audio, video, 
etc. These are attractive features for the home. Please relay my 
concern to the judge of the federal trial court. As a business, it 
is imperative that we at Milliman treat our customers well. 
Microsoft's decision appears to be directed at Lotus, but impacts us 
significantly. I do not believe it is in the best interest of the 
business community at large to have Microsoft be able to advantage 
itself due to it providing both operating system and application 
software.
    Sincerely,
    Brian S. Pollack
    [email protected]
    1301 Fifth Ave.
    Suite 3800
    Seattle, WA 98101
    cc: Tim Muth, Esq.



MTC-00011492

From: monaphil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a computer trainer and have been for many years. I'd just 
like to say that the introduction of Windows has made my life much 
easier as the Windows product has standardized all software. 
Microsoft has provided an invaluable service to the population and 
software students everywhere by providing a standard upon which all 
software is based. In my perspective, this is an invaluable service 
rather than a `monopoly' situation. I think the Microsoft suit 
should be settled and taxpayers' money should go elsewhere to truly 
fight injustice.


    Sincerely,
    Mona Mehta Steffen
    3731 N. Military Rd
    Arlington VA 22207



MTC-00011493

From: Don Leslie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my opinion regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement. While I know that both sides have their views (backed by 
their own facts) Microsoft is still one of Americas finest companies 
ever. They play hardball (as all large companies have to), they 
stepped out-of-bounds, got called on it, they've already paid a high 
price and will no doubt pay a hell-of-a-lot more to settle and 
settle we should. Many of the states holding out are doing so for 
political reasons and that's an injustice to our country. Let's 
move-on and let Microsoft continue to be the leader in their 
industry. Microsoft is a great American company and I'm proud to 
support them and a quick settlement for the good of our economy and 
country. For the few states that are holding out, let-it-go and get 
on with life and compete instead of complaining.
    Don Leslie
    MDB & Associates, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00011494

From: Paul Larmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should settle this case now. It is in the best 
interest of all consumers and our economy to stop this litigation.
    Paul Larmon



MTC-00011495

From: Don Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US DOJ. Please settle the case with Microsoft. The current 
proposal seems fair, and we need to move forward and let the 
technology industry get back to a sense of normalcy. If there is 
continued doubt about one of the most successful companies in the 
industry, it will be hard for vendors, partners, and customers to 
make informed decisions about the future. Please don't let a few 
competitors try to disrupt one of the most successful runs of 
technological innovation this country has seen.
    Thanks.
    Don Barren



MTC-00011496

From: Louis F Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a home user and believe that it is time to approve the 
settlement because it seems that the terms of the settlement are 
fair for all involved. Also I feel that since the 9-11 event it is 
more imperative that we get business back to normal as soon as 
possible.
    Regards,
    Louis Schneider


[[Page 25463]]




MTC-00011497

From: Chuck & Cindi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:37pm
Subject: Please Settle the Microsoft Case
    It is in the publics best interest, the economies best interest, 
and the tech industry's best interest to put an end to this 
litigation and settle the case promptly.
    This has never been a case brought on nor fought in the best 
interest of the consumer. It was brought on by the executives of 
Microsoft's competitors and has always been predominantly in their 
own personal/corporate best interests. Please let corporations and 
their executives battle out market share in their own arenas--not in 
the political or court system. Especially in such a fast growing and 
competitive arena such as the tech sector.
    Thank you.
    C. Solomon



MTC-00011498

From: JACK PURSER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:38pm
Subject: Micro antitrust
    Why don't you leave this company alone, pretty soon NO company 
will want to do business in the US because of actions by money 
grubbers like you!!
    Jack Purser Sr.



MTC-00011499

From: Gary Smith (Numar)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:38pm
Subject: Why is Microsoft's stranglehold on computing being 
supported by U SDOJ?
    I am so frustrated that I felt compelled to write. I have been 
having considerable difficulty with instability of Windows98. After 
months of trying to get Linux up and running I made the horrible 
mistake of purchasing Windows XP. It is a disaster. First time I 
have upgraded an operating system in 15 years where the upgrade is 
worse than the previous problem. Of course the non-working OS 
software is non-returnable (because Bill Gates doesn't have enough 
money yet I suppose?). Technical support is almost impossible to 
get. I should have just sent $100.00 to the RNC. At least I would 
have felt better about who got my money. This guy is not right. He 
really needs to be reigned in. As for me, it's $100.00 in the trash 
and back to wrestling with Linux.
    Best Regards,
    Gary Smith
    Principal Mechanical Engineer
    NUMAR, Div. of Halliburton
    610.251.0116 (main #)
    610.722.4576 (direct #))
    610.296.9651 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00011500

From: KENNETH J RUSZCZYK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:38pm
Subject: MSFT SETTLEMENT
    I feel that anything that benefits the consumers is best for the 
economy. Why is it that Politicians, who can't run the country in an 
orderly fashion. Which is their job, by the way! Feel that they know 
best how to run the economy? The government officials are so ``out 
of touch'' with rest of the population. That most of their decisions 
are only for themselves & for those who contribute to their campaign 
chests. One of the most important reasons that the US economy has 
done so well. Is that there wasn't too much government involvement 
in the early stages of it's growth. Now the politicians think that 
since this country is so great & strong. That they were the ones who 
made it so. It wasn't them, it was the people who built & grew on 
this land & made it productive. As usual, the politicians take all 
the credit for things that go well in which they had no ``hand'' in. 
Then deny any involvement in the things that go wrong in which they 
were in charge of. I know there is not much, if anything I can do to 
altered their decisions. I do vote but I'm not thrilled about any of 
the candidates, except those who want to make less government.
    I don't look forward to the end of my life but at least I do 
know that I won't have to put up with government after it either.
    Kenneth Ruszczyk



MTC-00011501

From: Sharon Corboy
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  1:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    its a real shame that a few A.G. WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS are 
holding up a reasoned settlement and getting on WITH THE BUSINESS OF 
GROWING OUR ECONOMY THOMAS A CORBOY GIG HARBOR WASH. 98335



MTC-00011502

From: Lois Tilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I hope that you will finalize the Microsoft settlement as 
proposed. It is tough and fair. We must get on with business and not 
wring the life out of successful companies who agree to cooperate.
    Lois Tilles
    415-310-7654 (phone)
    [email protected]



MTC-00011503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle this case and move on.
    Mike Mehler
    Labor Relations
    Southern California Edison



MTC-00011504

From: MaryAnn(u)Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    Time to stop this madness. These attacks on our American 
Companies are the main reason our economy and stock markets are in 
the dumps. Time to get the lawyers out of Washington's Federal 
Justice Department and get back to business.
    Mary Ann Walters
    Brecksville, Ohio




MTC-00011505

From: Subhash Grover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case should settle as agreed upon. This will help the 
economy to get out of recession.
    Subhash Grover



MTC-00011506

From: Schober, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Forget Big Tobacco. Forget Microsoft. I'm going to make you a 
star: I am shocked and appalled to learn of a potent delivery system 
that luridly and unfairly bundles a highly addictive substance in a 
seemingly innocuous way. This delivery system threatens and harms 
the national interests in our food distribution system. I am seeking 
an immediate stop order be issued to the industry. In addition, I 
would like to be granted whistle blower status in this case.
    In particular I am referring to the bundling of sugar in 
prepared foods. As opposed to simply dusting foods with sugar, which 
can be casually detached (brushed off), food preparers needlessly 
bundle this highly addictive substance in their products. 
Furthermore, this delivery system (and it is a delivery system--the 
amount of sugar in the product can be controlled in the recipe) is 
used to create an artificial craving for a product within the 
unsuspecting purchaser.
    I urge you and your colleagues to take up this vital matter 
post-haste, and send me my whistle blower check.
    I anxiously remain awaiting your response,
    Lawrence Schober



MTC-00011507

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It may concern: I think the remaining nine states are 
obsessed with punishing Microsoft. They have taken up a personal 
position against Microsoft and Bill Gates only because they do not 
like either, just as Judge Jackson did. This is outrageous 
unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money to their 
constituents in those states. The Justice department reached a 
decision which was fair and brought this long legal process to and 
end. The nine remaining states should join in, rather then look at 
what they see as a company which they believe performs unfairly. 
Look at a company which has been primarily responsible for the huge 
technology movement throughout the world in the last ten years with 
their software moving information around the world, allowing world 
markets to develop faster and therefore creating jobs throughout the 
world.
    Joe Cirillo, a patriot, business man and consumer. I speak on 
behalf of many friends and my family.



MTC-00011508

From: Sherri Wender
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:41pm



[[Page 25464]]


Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    I am writing in support of your proposed antitrust settlement 
with 9 states and Microsoft. The settlement is fair, and it is time 
to move on in the interest of fairness, competitiveness, and for the 
sake of the economy.
    Thank you,
    Sherri Wender
    21464 President Point Rd
    Kingston, WA 98346
    [email protected]



MTC-00011509

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case, we have so much going on now, with the 
economy and the other problems we are facing. We need to set some 
real priorities, this has gone on long enough.
    Marlene Pavlow



MTC-00011510

From: Dr Whom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Anti-Trust Trust,
    Please leave Microsoft alone, go after some dishonest 
politicians!!
    Thank you,
    monty johnson



MTC-00011511

From: Bradley Bobbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:42pm
Subject: accept MicroSoft settlement
    Please accept the MicroSoft settlement, and stop harassing them 
already! Go bother someone doing some harm instead of wasting any 
more money on that nonsense!
    Thank you,
    Dr. Bradley Bobbs
    6862 Hayvenhurst Ave.
    Van Nuys, CA 91406
    (818)947-3192



MTC-00011512

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Court Ruling a Joke
    Hello.
    I would like to inform you that the recent court ruling in favor 
of Microsoft is an absolute joke. This in light of the fact that 
Microsoft was found guilty of using it's monopoly to further it's 
cause. Now the DOJ virtually guarantees more of the same by allowing 
the company to distribute more software, and thus have a stronger 
monopoly in the market. What kind of judgment is that?
    Sincerely,
    Jim Mosher



MTC-00011513

From: Roseanne Woo
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is fair and reasonable. Do not 
allow the 9 renegade states stall the process. The country has 
wasted enough energy during the long-drawn-out lawsuit. The time has 
come for settlement so that a great company can re-direct its 
resourcefulness to its core business. At the same time, the 
government needs to adjust its thinking to the new economy.
    Roseanne Woo-Haltresht
    1973 Lord Fitzwalter Drive,
    Miamisburg, OH 45342



MTC-00011514

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Justice Department:
    Stop hurting taxpayers. Anything that hurts Microsofts, hurts 
the investors, the economy, and the country. Let the CEO's of 
envious companies work hard as Bill Gates did. Stop the madness! 
It's about time.
    Graciela Beecher
    2904 Shawnee Dr.
    Fort Wayne, IN 46807



MTC-00011515

From: Christina Bishop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the case 
U.S. vs. Microsoft is flawed in the following ways:
    The PFJ does not End Microsofts Monopoly and Even Allows 
Microsoft to expand its Monopoly into Other Technology Markets. The 
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead 
guarantees Microsofts monopoly will survive and be allowed to expand 
into new markets. Microsoft has always found it advantageous to 
leverage its operating system monopoly position in order to maximize 
its own profits, which many of us have experienced firsthand.
    The PFJ Does Not Adequately Address Anticompetitive Behavior 
Identified by the Appeals Court. The PFJ Incorporates Such Large 
Loopholes to Its Enforcement Provisions as to Render Enforcement 
Meaningless.
    The PFJ Does Not Provide an Effective Enforcement Mechanism for 
the Weak Restrictions it does Implement. The proposed settlement 
requires a three-man compliance team to oversee Microsofts 
compliance with the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, 
the Justice Department another, and the third will be chosen by the 
two people already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control 
half the team. This new team will not be allowed to inform the 
public of their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work 
of the committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. The committees sole remedy for infractions is for them 
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the 
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and 
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department 
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is 
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke 
screen.
    The PFJ Does not deny to Microsoft the Fruits of its Past 
Statutory Violations. Under


the proposed settlement, Microsoft is only marginally penalized for 
its anticompetitive misdeeds. Every court involved with this case 
has acknowledged that Microsoft broke the anti-trust laws, yet under 
the terms of the proposed Agreement, Microsoft would be allowed to 
retain almost all of the profits gained from these activities. Nor 
does the PFJ make an accounting of all the gains Microsoft made 
through its illegal activities, nor does it try and compensate those 
harmed by Microsofts misdeeds. Through this proposed settlement, the 
Justice Department is sending a very clear (and very dangerous) 
message that anticompetitive behavior is totally acceptable. Every 
large potential monopolist is being told that they can get away with 
this sort of illegal behavior without fear of losing any of the 
profits made from such conduct. There is every incentive for future 
monopolists (most definitely including Microsoft) to engage in this 
type of predatory conduct and no incentive not to.
    Thank you for your time.
    Christina Bishop



MTC-00011516

From: Jeff W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see this settlement accepted by the 9 remaining 
states and the industry move on.



MTC-00011517

From: Tom (038) Wilma Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:33pm
Subject: Opinion
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel a reasonable agreement has been reached in the 
``Microsoft Lawsuit'' and further litigation does not benefit the 
country. It seems as if this lawsuit precipitated the current 
financial situation in this country. I say ``Enough already'' and 
let us move on.
    Thomas Llewellyn
    593 Vintage Dr.
    Elkton, OR 97436



MTC-00011518

From: Steve Dehekker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that it would be an appropriate remedy to split 
Microsoft Corporation into at least two, completely independent 
components--one that develops software applications and the other 
that develops operating systems. This would promote competition and 
innovation by providing incentive for the applications software 
entity to develop for platforms other than Windows. It would also 
serve as incentive to make the Windows operating system more 
compatible with application software developed by companies other 
than Microsoft.
    I am a non-technical consumer who uses computers, including 
Microsoft products, on a daily basis. My observations are based upon 
my actual experience and informal observation of this case for many 
years.
    Thank you for your consideration.


[[Page 25465]]


    Sincerely,
    Stephen E. DeHekker, AIA
    Hastings+Chivetta Architects, Inc.
    700 Corporate Park Drive, Suite 400
    St. Louis, MO 63105
    (Main) 314-863-5717
    (Direct) 314-863-4361 Ext 138
    [email protected]



MTC-00011519

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:45pm
Subject: settlement
    pleases settle this case and get on with life....i am sure these 
attorneys have more to do than make headlines in their state using 
this high profile case to further their political ambitions 
.........



MTC-00011520

From: Tom Moore
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IF YOU WOULD SETTLE THE 
MICROSOFT CASE AND MOVE ON TO MORE PRESSING MATTERS.
    THOMAS L. MOORE



MTC-00011521

From: David Brookes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft case should be settled
    This case should be settle at once. We need to move forward not 
backward. This case was brought upon Microsoft because they would 
not give money to politicians in Washington. Why is every time the 
USG decides to help us we get screwed?
    Are the prices of computers going up or down? Down is the 
correct answer and not only are they going down but you get more for 
your money. Name one other industry where that is happening?
    This case has been a total waste of tax payers dollars. The only 
real reason the states will not settle is because of poor fiscal 
policy they are broke. And look here, Microsoft has 40B in cash...so 
lets go steal it. Your no different then criminals but since you 
make the rules so your always right.
    I vote and the best policy is to vote out everyone who is in 
office. Ross Perot said it best in 1990, ``It's time to clean the 
shit out of the barn''.
    Dave Brookes



MTC-00011522

From: david milton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We have in place a fair settlement that needs to be adopted in 
order for the industry to commit reasouces for further inovation. 
Without the settlement as it stands we cannot expect companies to 
invest in ideas that that they may not be able to control in the 
future. Settle this and lets get back to leading the world into the 
next age. David Milton, 5728 Meadowhaven Dr., Plano TX 75093



MTC-00011523

From: Mark Johnson (PREMIER)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:45pm
Subject: The Tunney Act review--Microsoft
    It is my understanding that The Tunney Act review period is 
still open. I understand the Department of Justice seeks public 
comment on its proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and 
Microsoft, and the public comment's close on Monday, January 28. I 
also understand the settlement is not guaranteed until after the 
review ends and the District Court determines whether the settlement 
is indeed in the public interest.
    It is my opinion that the provisions of the agreement are tough, 
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go far beyond the 
findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Still, while consumers such as 
I overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for me and the 
American economy, I and every citizen I have come in contact with 
overwhelmingly want to see this move beyond this litigation, it is 
also my understanding that nine states have refused to join the 
settlement. In fact some, including Utah Attorney General Mark 
Shurtleff and Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, are urging 
citizens via email or Web site to submit their comments to the DoJ 
during the Tunney review period.
    Thank you for your review of my opinion,
    Mark Johnson



MTC-00011524

From: TOM R MCMAHON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:45pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I SUPPORT THE LITIGATION BY THE 9 STATES AGAINST MICROSOFT TO 
PRODUCE A FAIRER DEAL FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER.
    TOM MCMAHON/ SAN DIEGO



MTC-00011526

From: Mark Herrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
CC: [email protected]@ inetgw,gws@clickactio...
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally: The Court should disallow, in its 
current form, the proposed settlement between the U.S. Department of 
Justice and Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft (hereinafter referred to 
as the ?Agreement?). There are two main reasons this Court should 
disallow the Agreement.
    1) The Agreement completely ignores the standard laid down by 
the DC Appellate Court.
    2) The Agreement runs contrary to the public interest of the 
people of the United States and therefore should be held in 
violation of the Tunney Act.
    I. The Agreement fails to meet the Appellate Court's Remedy 
Standards. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia (hereinafter referred to as the ?Appellate Court?) in a 7-0 
decision upheld the District Court's decision that Microsoft 
violated the antitrust laws and was liable for such illegal conduct. 
The Appellate Court furthered ruled that any remedy found by the 
District Court must ?terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the 
fruits of its past statutory violations, and prevent any


future anticompetitive activity.? The Agreement fails to meet any of 
these three standards.
    A. Terminate the Monopoly. The deal fails to terminate the 
Microsoft monopoly, and instead guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will 
survive and be allowed to expand into new markets. All other 
businesses in the U.S. market that have a ninety percent market 
share are considered per-se monopolies and are regulated or have 
some sort of government oversight (i.e. utilities, local phone 
companies, cable companies etc.). This is done because it is in such 
a company's best interest (in the interest of their shareholders) to 
abuse their position. In other words, to gain maximum shareholder 
value, they are almost required to abuse their position. Why is 
Microsoft allowed a waiver to this general rule? Does Microsoft not 
try to gain optimum share value for their shareholders?
    B. Deny to Microsoft the Fruits of its Past Statutory 
Violations. Under the Agreement, Microsoft is not penalized for any 
past misdeeds. In other words, they are being allowed to retain all 
the profits gained from their illegal activities. Every court 
involved with this case has acknowledged that Microsoft broke the 
anti-trust laws. Through this Agreement, the Justice Department is 
sending the message that this sort of anticompetitive behavior is 
acceptable. Every large potential monopolistic company is being told 
that they can get away with this sort of illegal behavior without 
fear of losing any of the gains made from such conduct. In other 
words, get away with as much as you can until the Justice Department 
brings an action. There is every incentive for future monopolists 
(including Microsoft) to engage in this type of predatory conduct 
and no incentive not to.
    C. Prevent any Future Anticompetitive Activity. The Agreement 
fails to prevent any future anticompetitive activity because it 
completely ignores anticompetitive behavior highlighted by the 
Appellate Court. In addition, for the conduct the Agreement does try 
to remedy, it creates such huge loopholes to the rules it does 
establish as to render them completely useless. Lastly, the 
Agreement provides no effective enforcement mechanism for the rules 
it does establish.
    1. The Agreement Does Not Address Anticompetitive behavior 
identified by the Appeals Court.
    a) Retaliation. The settlement does not address Microsoft 
ability to retaliate against would-be competitors and to take the 
intellectual property of competitors doing business with Microsoft. 
The Appeals court found such past conduct by Microsoft highly 
egregious yet the Agreement does not address these issues.
    b) Bolting. The Agreement does not address the issue that fueled 
consumer criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 
1998: Microsoft's decision to bind--or ``bolt''--Internet Explorer 
to the Windows operating system in order to crush its browser 
competitor Netscape. This settlement gives Microsoft ?sole 
discretion? to unilaterally determine that other products or 
services which don't have anything to do with operating a computer 
are nevertheless 


[[Page 25466]]


part of a ``Windows Operating System product.'' 
This creates a new exemption from parts of antitrust law for 
Microsoft and would leave Microsoft free to bolt financial services, 
cable television, or the Internet itself into Windows.
    2. The Agreement Incorporates Such Large Loopholes to Its 
Restrictions on Microsoft as to Render Such Restrictions Useless.
    a) Middleware. As part of the Agreement, Microsoft is required 
to allow the PC manufacturers to hide Microsoft middleware programs 
and allow them to install icons or links to competing middleware 
programs. The only problem is that the PC manufacturers are not 
allowed to remove the code that could be used to reactivate 
Microsoft's middleware programs. In other words, two weeks into 
owning the machine, a consumer could be asked if they want to 
reconfigure their desktop, install all the Microsoft middleware and 
delete all the competitor's middleware.
    b) Communication Protocols. The Agreement states that Microsoft 
must now share information on how its middleware and server software 
work together with Windows. However, Microsoft does not have to 
disclose this information for middleware it does not distribute 
separate from windows, or for middleware it has not trademarked. In 
addition, Microsoft does not have to disclose this coding 
information if Microsoft deems such disclosure would harm the 
company's security or software licensing.
    (1) Software it Does Not Distribute Separate from Windows. This 
is a huge loophole of ``Bolting'' that was discussed above. If 
Microsoft wants to drive a competitor out of business, they just 
attach the specific type of software the competitor is involved with 
to their Windows platform. Once they do that, they do not have to 
share the coding information that allows the competitors software to 
work with Windows, thus driving the competitor out of business. Once 
the competitor is out of business, Microsoft can separate the 
software from the Windows package, sell it separately and derive 
huge margins.
    (2) Viable Business. Microsoft does not have to disclose their 
information to companies that in ``their view'' do not have a 
``viable business''. This loophole will allow Microsoft to prevent 
new software start-ups from forming because Microsoft could decide 
they are not a ``viable business''. Who can really say which new 
start-ups is a ``viable business''? Preventing new companies from 
starting is undeniably bad for competition, and therefore, the 
consumer.
    (3) Harm to Company's Security or Software Licensing. Microsoft 
does not have to share coding information if they believe that such 
disclosure would cause harm to the Company's security or software 
licensing. There is no provision to say who is to make this 
determination so it is clearly up to Microsoft. Could not Microsoft 
make the argument that sharing coding with any software or P.C. 
Manufacturer would endanger its security of software licensing?
    c) Bribing Competitors. The Agreement states that Microsoft 
``shall not enter into any agreement'' to pay a software vendor not 
to develop or distribute software that would compete with 
Microsoft's products. However, another provision in the Agreement 
permits those payments and deals when they are ``reasonably 
necessary.'' Who is the ultimate arbiter of when these deals would 
be ``reasonably necessary''? The Agreement does not specify so 
Microsoft will be allowed to make that decision.
    3. The Agreement Does Not Provide an Effective Enforcement 
Mechanism for the Weak Restrictions it does Implement. The Agreement 
requires a three-man compliance team to oversee Microsoft's 
compliance with the Agreement. Microsoft will appoint one person, 
the Justice Department another, and the third will be chosen by the 
two people already appointed. In essence, Microsoft will control 
half the team. This new team will not be allowed to inform the 
public of their work, and cannot impose fines. In addition, the work 
of the committee cannot be admitted into court in any enforcement 
proceeding. The committee's sole remedy for infractions is for them 
to inform the Justice Department of the infraction and then the 
Justice Department will have to conduct their own research and 
commence litigation to stop the infraction. The Justice Department 
does not need a compliance group to tell them when Microsoft is 
doing something wrong, so in reality this group is just a smoke 
screen.
    II. Violation of the Tunney Act. The Tunney Act clearly states 
that the court should disallow any agreement between an anti-trust 
violator and the Justice Department if such agreement is ``contrary 
to the public interest''. It is hard to imagine an Agreement that 
would violate the public trust more than the proposed Agreement. How 
could an agreement that ignores all three required remedies laid 
down by the Appellate court to remedy the situation (terminate the 
monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past statutory 
violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive activity) 
possibly be within the public interest. If this Agreement is upheld 
and then appealed, how could the Appellate Court approve this 
agreement when it directly violates its own mandate. It would have 
to find this Agreement to be in direct violation of its own mandate 
and the public interest. The Appellate Court's decision needs to be 
respected and this Agreement must be found void.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter, and should you have 
any questions about the above letter please feel free to contact me 
at any time. Sincerely yours,
    Mark Herrick
    Director of Non-Profit Services
    ClickAction
    Nasdaq: CLAC
    http://www.ClickAction.com
    CORPORATE OFFICE
    2197 E. Bayshore Rd.
    Palo Alto, CA 94303
    Direct Line: 650-463-3963 Fax: 650-473-3954



MTC-00011527

From: Richard Yochum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:51pm
Subject: Concerns about DOJ's focus and who they are working for
    I remain annoyed by the 9 states that refuse to settle w/
Microsft. I believe their Attorney


 Generals have been unduly influenced by Microsoft's competitors, 
who long ago determined that if they couldn't beat Microsoft in the 
marketplace, they would do it in court.
    In today's global economy, it seems misguided to legally impose 
restrictions on one of the US' most productive and recognized 
companies. Has Microsoft shafted investors and employees like Enron? 
No! There is absolutely no comparison.
    Is DOJ going to prosecute the criminal level of 'doing business' 
at Enron? At Arthur Anderson? These are the type of companies and 
individuals that need Federal and State scrutiny and prosecution. 
These types make a mockery, an oxymoron, of the concept, ``business 
ethics.''
    Will the Feds and State go after these recognized political 
supporters with the same pit bull determination they attacked 
Microsoft? Probably not, because in this case, mostly lowly 
taxpayers and wage earners were harmed. People who cannot fill the 
coffers of the political parties and their Attorney General lackeys 
like Sun, Oracle, and the other disparagers of Microsoft.
    Let's spend our tax dollars to defend Americans from being 
bilked by the likes of the criminal scum that made the decisions at 
Enron and Arthur Anderson. Let their comrades know that such 
behavior will result in crushing penalties and serious jail time! 
Allow Microsoft to advance its business model and lead the American 
economy into a prosperous new era.
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion.



MTC-00011528

From: Shaoyu Zhou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft Settlement is in the public interest. It 
provides a fair and effective way to address the concerns brought by 
this lawsuit. By resolving this issue quickly and effectively 
through this settlement, the whole computer industry can move 
forward, which in turn stimulates the growth of our economy in this 
difficult time. The remaining nine states that refused to settle are 
clearly working for Microsoft's competitors. The penalty proposal 
they have made only provides benefits to those Microsoft's 
competitors by completely disabling Microsoft's ability to compete. 
These remaining states are being very unfair to a US company that 
has naturely grown into a worldwide dominating company by its 
marketing and technology (and not through merging other companies).
    Shaoyu



MTC-00011529

From: vicki winn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:51pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Suit
    I am aghast that this case as gone on for as long as it has for 
an issue that appears to me to benefit no one! Clearly Microsoft has 
developed a superior product and is therefore the product of choice. 
This does not make their polices nor practices a ``monopoly''. I 


[[Page 25467]]


urge a quick an speedy settlement! I strongly believe the offer on 
the table is fair and benefits all.



MTC-00011530

From: Jerry N. Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen, get this thing settled! The cost for everyone 
involved is far more than any award $'s. Let Microsoft get back to 
work, let the litigations cease. Let's get on with using their 
superb products. Hopefully Microsoft has learned a hard lesson.
    Thank you,
    Jerry Phillips
    1327 10th St. Dr. NW
    Hickory, NC 29601
    828-261-0200



MTC-00011531

From: Schober, Larry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    The provisions of the Microsoft settlement agreement are tough, 
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings 
of Court of Appeals ruling. You are doing a disservice to computer 
customers and, given Microsoft's world leading position for this 
product, to the nation. You are hampering trade by your excessive 
involvement of government.
    By pursuing a reckless agenda of attacking Microsoft you are 
neither representing justice, nor my interests as a computer user 
and an American.



MTC-00011532

From: Dan Warrensford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Notice:
    Any person, government or corporate entity that attacks a 
Capitalist Institution for doing what Capitalist Institutions are 
supposed to do, i.e., create high quality goods and services 
efficiently, for affordable prices, is neo-Fascistic at best.
    So, stop acting like Mussolini's philosophical heirs, get out of 
Microsoft's corporate face, and go after some real criminals--like 
the ENRON executives. Just DO it.
    Dan Warrensford
    40 Uranus Ave.
    Merritt Island FL 32953-3158
    (321) 453-2217; [email protected]



MTC-00011533

From: Bartucci, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I would encourage you to bring the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit to 
a rapid conclusion. It's gone on long enough and the effect on the 
consumer (which I realize is irrelevant) will be negative in the 
long run. I am a professional software developer and I use Microsoft 
as well as many other vendor's products every day.
    Frankly, I'm happy to have a Microsoft around--without them 
(i.e., a single OS source) we would not have a commercially viable 
desktop computer, especially for home use. Unix (and all its 
variants such as Linux) will never be an alternative to a Windows 
OS, not because of MS business practice but because of the product 
itself. As a professional, I use Unix everyday-- I prefer to work in 
a Windows environment simply because there are so many more tools 
available for Windows (which seems to me flies in the face of the 
judge's decision). And as far as the browsers are concerned, the 
Internet Explorer browser is far superior to any other browser 
available. I have several variants of the Netscape browser installed 
``just in case'' but I hardly ever use them--usually because they 
simply don't work! If Netscape had a problem with Microsoft, it was 
because they had an inferior product-- no lawsuit is going to change 
that fact. I'm glad Microsoft chooses to bundle it with all their OS 
products--it saves me the trouble of downloading it.
    Please bring this case to a swift conclusion. We as a society 
have gained nothing from either the case itself or its outcome. And 
there is nothing further to be gained by dragging this out.
    John Bartucci Lockheed Martin Naval Electronic Surveillance 
Systems--Akron
    1210 Massillon Rd
    Akron, OH 44315
    330-796-2395



MTC-00011534

From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just settle the case, get this over and done with!!!
    Stephen Quinn



MTC-00011535

From: marty stephens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Justice Department to accept the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. This issue has gone for too long, and has proved a 
detrimental not only to Microsoft but to the entire tech industry. 
Our government should be fostering industrial growth in lieu of 
penalizing creative industries that strengthen our economy.
    Martin Stephens
    2020 Deer Trail
    Warsaw, Indiana 46580



MTC-00011536

From: Jim Stoneburner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time for the US Government and Microsoft to stop wasting 
Time and Money. The time could be better spent by parties and the 
Money which belongs to the Tax Payers could be better utilized by 
the Tax Payers.
    This lawsuit has been an obvious ploy by certain disgruntled 
Companies to get even with Microsoft through their Clinton contacts. 
Stop the waste. We've wasted


enough Tax Payer money prosecuting (persecuting) Microsoft.
    Microsoft in turn has wasted enough of it's revenues--which in 
turn--has been paid for by increased sales prices to the consumer, 
the Tax Payer.
    Jim Stoneburner
    Col USAF Retired
    12779 Rueda Acayan
    San Diego, CA 92128



MTC-00011537

From: Needham, James P
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:55pm
Subject: Let the Market Work!
    I continue to be amazed by the ongoing litigation related to 
Microsoft. From my view if there is any anti-competitive activity 
going on it is that perpetrated by the DOJ, a few State AGs, and a 
limited number of companies that made some poor business choices and 
now what MSFT penalized because of their lack of wisdom. It is time 
for the DOJ and the courts to put a stop to this judicial extortion 
against MSFT. As a tax payer, let's allocate our legal resources to 
stopping terrorism, going after the Enron's of the world and get off 
the back of the only true innovator company in the last 40 years who 
has created unprecedented wealth for our country, the public, 
business and their share holders.
    Regards,
    James P. Needham
    Regional Director Europe & Russia
    Airline Marketing Services
    Boeing Commercial Airplanes
    P.O. Box 3707 MS 21-32
    Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
    Phone: 1-206-766-2585
    US Mobile: 1-206-683-9105
    Fax: 1-206-766-1030
    e:mail [email protected]
    CC:'msft(a)chasemellon.com'



MTC-00011538

From: Richard Manson-Hing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The DOJ settlement proposal seems to address the past (emphasis 
on PAST) illegal practices by Microsoft to protect its monopoly 
position in the market for its software and platforms. However, it 
does little to ensure that future illegal monopolistic practices are 
not engaged in. It particular, it does very little to address the 
following:
    Microsoft has had time to build up a significant barrier to 
entry for competitive products. Even with the proposed settlement in 
place, it would still be prohibitively expensive for would-be 
competitors to try to enter any market space that Microsoft has 
deemed theirs. There are already examples (maybe not necessarily 
directly illegal) of where Microsoft will attempt to commit anti-
competitive behavior. For example, their recent financial investment 
in Groove Networks seeks to tie-in an emerging technology (peer-to-
peer collaborative technology) to their Windows platform. The 
Windows brand is simply too powerful to compete against. The damage 
is already done!


[[Page 25468]]


    is generally agreed today that new markets such as mobile 
computing and small devices such as the Palm Pilot and Cellular 
phones will eventually command a larger share of consumer interest 
over the traditional PC. Microsoft has already begun to extend the 
Windows monopolistic brand to these new areas. A technical review 
board put in place to review Microsoft practices would be too slow 
to be effective!
    The settlement does nothing to compensate Microsoft competitors 
for the harm that they have endured. These competitors (Netscape, 
Java, Real Networks etc) are now engaged in an uphill battle to 
achieve some prominence in the market. These companies would today 
be in a much better market position if the anti-competitive 
practices by Microsoft were never engaged in, in the first place. 
Microsoft's strategy is to delay litigation until they can make come 
up with a different method of monopolizing the market or until the 
point is moot!
    In closing, I disagree with the DOJ proposed settlement. It is a 
way for the DOJ to simply ``give up'' while saving as much face as 
possible. The DOJ needs to come up with a way to ``level the playing 
field'' by giving Microsoft competitors ``a leg up''.



MTC-00011539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    m appalled that the states are continuing action against 
Microsoft. It is simply improper for the states to serve as lackeys 
for the likes of Sun and Oracle against the interests of the 
consumer. Of all the corporate abuses that affect me financially, 
Microsoft is very low in the list.
    I've been in the computing business for most of my working 
career and have seen the huge benefits to the industry that 
Microsoft has facilitated. The standard platforms that Microsoft has 
provided make it possible for my company to succeed against much 
larger competitors, by minimizing the advantages of size and 
drastically shortening the development cycle. Price of servers is 
coming down drastically due to the availability of Windows platforms 
and Microsoft databases. Compare the prices of Microsoft based 
servers with a Sun/Oracle of similar capability. And Microsoft 
hasn't lowered prices to gain share only to raise them later. You 
should be looking into Airline fare pricing for this abuse.
    Give it a rest. Get out of the way of my business, you're 
hurting me.
    Sam List
    135 Bow Street
    Unit 4
    Portsmouth, NH 03801
    603 436 1271



MTC-00011540

From: Nick Rosenstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I decided to take time out of my schedule today to write to you 
concerning the importance of the recent U.S. vs. Microsoft 
settlement. The settlement will benefit consumers and the public 
interest, and therefore no further action should be taken against 
Microsoft.
    Although there are some terms in the settlement which I feel go 
too far and would not accept, I understand Microsoft's desire to 
wrap this suit up and move forward. The settlement itself is strong, 
requiring, for example, Microsoft to possibly disclose intellectual 
property rights. This could arise if a third party wants to exercise 
its settlement options. If it is determined that doing so would 
infringe on a Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft will 
provide the third party with a license to the necessary intellectual 
property. The settlement actually supercedes Microsoft's property 
rights. Further, compliance with these terms will enforced in part 
by a Technical Committee to be created under the settlement.
    This agreement gives Microsoft the freedom to focus exclusively 
on what they do best, that is, developing new and advanced 
technology that consumers like myself have come to expect, whether 
it is at home or work.
    Sincerely,
    Nick Rosenstein, Ph.D.
    President
    IPN Interactive Payer Network
    Please visit us on www.InterPayNet.com
    Interactive Payer Network
    Landerbrook Corporate Center
    5910 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 110
    Cleveland, Ohio 44124
    voice 440-720-0700, x201
    fax 440-720-0702
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00011541

From: Robert Gibson
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:55pm
Subject: Get it done!
    Justice delayed is justice denied. Microsoft was denied 
presenting any evidence before the court ..that's not justice. 
Having the judge making public comment while the case is in 
progress. That's not justice. Asking competitors to set penalties. 
That's not justice. How pathetic does it get?
    Even more pathetic as this bunch of has been envious companies 
hate Microsoft so much that in a bid to line their own pockets with 
their ill gotten gain they will even go so far as to deny American 
school kids computers.
    It's not about justice is it. It's just plain envy and hate of a 
rich but generous man who gave $17B to charity last year. YOU HAVE 
NO SHAME!!
    Thank you
    Robert John Gibson
    Senior Systems Eng, B Eng, NNCDE
    Network Engineering
    Ph 919 992 5072 ESN 352



MTC-00011542

From: Randy Pelham


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have followed with interest the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. It disturbs me that the government will spend millions of 
dollars of taxpayer money on witch hunts. It is obvious that the 
government has selectively chosen Microsoft in this matter. Why not 
AOL? If the government is going to take action against those 
companies which strive to improve their product for the good of the 
public, then our whole economy will eventually stagnate from the 
lack of creativity. I back any settlement that will stop the waste 
of taxpayer money.



MTC-00011543

From: Elizabeth M(00E9)nard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:57pm
Subject: Settlement
    I honestly believe that this case has dangerously harmed the US 
and the Canadian economy. If the whole word has a cumputer on their 
desk today it is because of company like Microsoft who did deliver 
afordable software available everywhere. It is not a Microsoft 
illegal issue but a maket demand issue! Their revenue is customer 
driven! We like it we buy it ! No one is twisting the customer's 
arms.
    Today I can send this message instantly because of Microsoft and 
their developers all over the world. This case is all about politics 
not about consumers. Now days everyone can install what ever 
software they want! It doesn't always have to be a Microsoft product 
but if it is easeer to use and cheeper to buy than let it be a 
Microsoft product. They deserve it! because they always had the 
product we needed!
    Elizabeth Minard
    Canadian citizen
    a 20 year old Microsoft Product user



MTC-00011544

From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE just settle this case. It has gone on far too long, it is 
out of date at this point.
    S. Quinn



MTC-00011545

From: Mike Fowler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I continue to watch with much curiosity the on-going dilemma 
between various states and the DOJ regarding the above class action 
suit and as always, try to follow the money. Of all the class-action 
suits that I have been aware of or had the unfortunate experience to 
have been part and party, the only individuals or business who 
profited were attorneys and accounting groups. It appears to me that 
because there have been no other companies who have been able to 
develop programs that are both functionally and price competitive 
with Microsoft's programs, it appears that these remaining states 
are simply holding out for money to fill their coffers.


[[Page 25469]]


    Our organization is a medium size business with approximately 
200 personnel and we have used and relied on Microsoft products for 
more that 5 years and have been extremely satisfied with their 
products and services.
    It would be much simpler if these states would just cut to the 
chase and tell Microsoft how much money they want so that this suit 
can finally end once and for all. No individual I have spoken to who 
uses Microsoft products has any idea that they will receive or have 
ever received any compensation from a class-action suit. 
Individually one person (if they can verify they purchased a piece 
of software) will receive only a small return of monies from a suit 
of this sort. On the other hand, the attorneys are likely to receive 
millions, tens of millions or more from a settlement. For the most 
part, the only people interested in this suit (especially since 9/
11/2001) are those states who stand to gain millions for their state 
coffers....I think they care little or nothing about individuals or 
businesses.
    Settle this stupid suit and let's get on with more important 
matters (such as the obvious fraud associated with the fall of 
Enron--some blame needs to be laid on investment companies who 
follow and report on these types of companies and continue to 
encourage investors to buy their stocks, Arthur Anderson, and those 
executives who led people astray while dumping their own stock). 
It's time to more on.
    Michael B. Fowler
    V.P. Finance/Administration
    Rogers & Brown Custom Brokers, Inc.
    P.O. Box 20160
    Charleston, SC 29413



MTC-00011546

From: Andrew Coupe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:57pm
Subject: Letter of comment on the Microsoft Litigation
Andrew Coupe
14 Middlebridge Court
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I am a Microsoft supporter and have been 
active in informing my state government of Maryland on my views. I 
feel this issue has drawn on long enough, and I was relieved to hear 
that Maryland had settled and dropped its lawsuit against Microsoft. 
I am extremely anxious to see this dispute resolved at the federal 
level.
    Microsoft is a company that has done much to impact our society. 
Because of Microsoft, we reap the benefits of computer technology in 
our daily lives. This settlement will end three years of litigation 
and will allow Microsoft to continue focusing its energy on 
innovative design. This settlement was reached after extensive 
negotiations and is complete. Microsoft will now agree to share 
sensitive information about Windows with its competitors.
    I find it particularly disturbing that the remaining states in 
the lawsuit are all homes to Microsoft competitors. It is my 
understanding, that the Tunney act was designed to protect consumers 
not corporations. It appears that Oracle, Novell, Sun Microsystems, 
and others are using state legislators to further their own agenda 
under the guise of ``protecting consumers''. It is ironic that state 
legislators are pursuing Microsoft for overcharging consumers while 
Sun and IBM continue to sell competing products at significantly 
higher prices.
    During these difficult economic times, it would serve in the 
best public interest to stop wasting precious resources on 
litigation against Microsoft and allow this company to get back to 
business. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Coupe



MTC-00011547

From: Genie Morrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Folks At DOJ:
    This has gone on long enough.
    While I appreciate your efforts to reach a fair and equitable 
settlement for all American businesses and Americans, it is time for 
action. Settle, and let's move on.
    Where is the outcry from DOJ when... Only 2 meat packers control 
nearly all of the food supply, here in the US? Only 3 major 
confectioners; Hershey, Mars, and Nestle control most chocolate/
candy? Only 1 satellite company will control the entire US satellite 
TV market? Only 2 (major) food service distributors for restaurants 
in the US? Only 3 companies control air conditioning/furnace (HVAC) 
manufacturing? The list goes on and on...
    We Americans will not need a DOJ if Alan Greenspan lowers 
interest rates again. Heck, the big companies will borrow money (so 
they can buyout small, competing companies), Americans will lose 
their jobs, and soon--a handful of companies will control EVERYTHING 
in America.
    Nice picture? Get this settlement over with. You have many more 
important issues to tackle. Software giants of today, can fall 
tomorrow. Who thought IBM would be brought to their knees--by 
Microsoft?
    Kindest Regards,
    Genie Morrison



MTC-00011548

From: Richard Spooner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ
    I support the proposed antitrust settlement which reasonably 
punishes the wrong-doing found by the court and allows all concerned 
to move on. Users worldwide need the common standard Microsoft 
supplies. Please don't handicap the US economy by delaying 
settlement now.
    Yours
    Richard Spooner



MTC-00011549

From: [email protected]@ inetgw


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I support Microsoft in its attempt to innovate. Microsoft has 
probably done more to move this country forward than any other 
company. There attempt to be a leader has caused other companies to 
take notice and because they haven't been as successful they cry 
foul. Microsoft Corp. should be an example for other companies. No 
matter what Microsoft does to settle this lawsuit people are not 
happy. These people, especially the schools, are in it for the 
money. I would suggest finding some real criminals to bring to 
justice and leave Microsoft alone and free to innovate.



MTC-00011550

From: kamran mortezavi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to close this case and move on to more important 
issues that are effecting our lives to day. My vote is for the 
settlement.
    Kamran Mortezavi
    (301) 340-2669 (home)
    (301) 762-9126 (home Fax)



MTC-00011551

From: Tom Berry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all whom these presents shall come, Greetings.
    (Is that how it's usually put??)
    Having reviewed the documents related to this case, please let 
me offer the opinion that they are a good start, yet insufficient to 
prevent monopoly abuse on the part of Microsoft (as they have 
demonstrated in the past; cf. the December 17, 1997 contempt 
motion). Further, let me suggest an additional remedy that should 
lessen the probability of such occurrences while remaining 
consistent with Microsoft's own claims of its innovative prowess. As 
you will recall, in the early phases of these trials, Microsoft 
chose to paint the picture that the case was about freedom to 
innovate. I believe my (admittedly partial) solution leaves them 
free to innovate and reap the benefits of any true innovation.
    The remainder of this email speaks to Paragraphs 36 and 37 of 
the original complaint, which are:
    36. Neither the antitrust laws nor this action seeks to inhibit 
Microsoft from competing on the merits by innovation or otherwise. 
Rather, the Complaint challenges only Microsoft's concerted attempts 
to maintain its monopoly in operating systems and to achieve 
dominance in other markets, not by innovation and other competition 
on the merits, but by tie-ins, exclusive dealing contracts, and 
other anticompetitive agreements that deter innovation, exclude 
competition, and rob customers of their right to choose among 
competing alternatives.
    37. Microsoft's conduct adversely affects innovation, including 
by:
    a. impairing the incentive of Microsoft's competitors and 
potential competitors to 


[[Page 25470]]


undertake research and development, because 
they know that Microsoft will be able to limit the rewards from any 
resulting innovation;
    b. impairing the ability of Microsoft's competitors and 
potential competitors to obtain financing for research and 
development;
    c. inhibiting Microsoft's competitors that nevertheless succeed 
in developing promising innovations from effectively marketing their 
improved products to customers;
    d. reducing the incentive and ability of OEMs to innovate and 
differentiate their products in ways that would appeal to customers; 
and
    e. reducing competition and the spur to innovation by Microsoft 
and others that only competition can provide.
    Microsoft has in the past established a particular modus 
operandi, to wit:
    1) A potential competitor will develop an innovative product 
with the potential of material impact in the middleware arena.
    2) Microsoft will purchase, license, steal and reimplement the 
concepts of the product, or simply infringe patents to incorporate 
the competitive technology into it's own product offerings. In the 
case of simply stealing someone's idea (e.g. Web browsers), 
Microsoft's operating system dominance then nearly guarantees the 
overtaking and ownership of the new technology's market. (If you 
would have evidence of this kind of behavior, especially my 
infringement accusation, let me suggest that some of the lawsuits 
brought against Microsoft whose records have been sealed be 
unsealed. Those cases that Microsoft wants left sealed the most 
will, I am sure, provide the richest examples.)
    3) The threat being neutralized, Microsoft will cease any 
meaningful ``innovation'' and begin developing minor feature 
enhancements designed to drive revenue to Microsoft rather than 
provide value to consumers. (Witness the release of Word 6 on the 
Macintosh, which actually ran slower than its predecessor. This flaw 
was only corrected after massive publicity began to reflect poorly 
on Microsoft.)
    However, the current settlement, especially the paragraphs: 
``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.
    This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft 
licenses intellectual property in from a third party; does not 
address the behavior I have described, where Microsoft essentially 
stifles innovation while claiming to be innovative.
    Let me propose the following additions to the settlement:
    Microsoft be prohibited from acquiring (or making a future 
agreement to acquire) any company or company's product, or 
purchasing anything more than non-exclusive redistribution rights to 
another company's individual product, for seven years. Also, they 
would be prohibited from making investments greater than, say, $20M 
in any company.
    Microsoft could not possess copies of the source code for any 
software product not developed in-house, even under license. The 
actions of any company in which it made investments could not be 
restricted by Microsoft in any way, shape, or form. Microsoft be 
prohibited from implementing technologies developed at any other 
company unless they adequately license someone else's patent. (I'd 
suggest a guideline of ``adequacy'' could be established, perhaps 3% 
of the product's gross revenues.) Possibly companies or individuals 
could also register their own innovations with an office of the 
Technical Committee (*not* located in Redmond). (Given that the 
Technical Committee will be on Microsoft's campus we have to assume 
that Microsoft would be able to read any database kept on its 
premises.) While this appears to duplicate the efforts of the US 
Patent and Trademark Office, the Technical Committee's innovation 
database could probably be updated more easily and would allow for 
the registration of product concepts, again the chief example being 
web browsers (registration would require the presence of a working 
prototype, of course). This does not constrain Microsoft from 
developing its own patents or ideas, indeed, it should encourage 
such ``innovation''.
    Further, if Microsoft is found guilty in (or settles) a suit of 
patent or innovation infringement filed (not necessarily resolved) 
during the during the period of enforcement (listed as 5 years in 
the Settlement document, though I would suggest increasing this term 
to 7 years), punitive penalties should be 30-fold the original 
judgement or settlement (not the mere 3 times that I believe current 
law allows).
    I believe that these additions to the settlements will encourage 
true innovative behavior on Microsoft's part to the benefit of the 
consumer. I recognize that these provisos flirt with restraint of 
trade. However, Microsoft has flouted the law without adequate 
recompense to date, and I believe an extraordinary remedy is in 
order.
    Best Regards,
    Thomas Berry
    Galileo Systems, LLC
    408-296-5223
    CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw, ROBERT.RIGSBY@...



MTC-00011552

From: Dixie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Truly this has gone far enough. With all that is happening in 
the world I would think it is time to move on and let Microsoft run 
their business and end this long drawn out lawsuit.. The settlement 
terms Microsoft offered are in my opinion more than fair, in the 
interest of ``right'' end this nonsense now.
    Sincerely,


    Mary D. Pintler
    Dixie Pintler
    [email protected]



MTC-00011553

From: Ron Samford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:00pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let's get this settled and move on; it's time to free Microsoft 
from the burdens of this litigation and get the DOJ focused on more 
pressing needs. Microsoft has recognized it's not infallible in this 
issue. All objectives have been met in large measure on both sides. 
Settle it now, please.



MTC-00011554

From: Bakstran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    This email is to let you know my feelings on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I am a Massachusetts resident and do not agree 
with our Attorney General who has decided not to abide by the 
proposed settlement. I believe the settlement is fair and is 
certainly in the best interest of the consumers of the US. Microsoft 
has provided so much to us in the area of technology improvements 
and price/performance of their software. I look forward to their 
innovations in 2002 and beyond.
    Sincerely
    Annette Bakstran
    20 Baker Road
    Berlin, MA 01503



MTC-00011555

From: George Huey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is becoming increasingly clear that the case against 
Microsoft is not only against Microsoft but against the American 
people as well. The hate spewed forth by AOL, Sun and Oracle is 
disgusting and I find it hard to believe that our justice system 
would side with such companies. Our economy is in the toilet and it 
needs everything it can get it to rebound (like getting off of 
Microsoft's back). It is an interesting note that our economy didn?t 
start to decline until the government attacked Microsoft. If DOJ is 
really interested in helping the American people, it will stop 
listening to the Microsoft bashers (AOL, Sun and Oracle) and think 
about what is good for the American people. If anything, I would 
like an inquiry into how the government justice system can take 
sides with companies such as AOL, Sun and Oracle when it is clear 
that none of these companies give a flying goose about the welfare 
of the American people. Anyway, this madness needs to stop. If AOL, 
Sun and Oracle want to compete, tell them to lower their prices and 
become competitive with Microsoft, not have the government destroy 
Microsoft so that they won?t have to provide better products. Also, 
I resent the fact that the government and Microsoft's competitors 
think that the American public is so stupid that they can?t make a 
choice on what software they want to run on their systems. If I want 
to run AOL 


[[Page 25471]]


or use an Oracle database, I will do so. Microsoft has 
never forced me to use their products. I am very happy with 
Microsoft and their struggle to make the computer user experience 
easy. I believe that Microsoft is working for the people not against 
the people like its competitors. Any politician that fights against 
Microsoft will lose my vote. It is time for the American justice 
system to get out of bed with AOL, Sun, and Oracle and think about 
what is good for the people not what is good for Microsoft's 
competitors. Please stop trying to destroy Microsoft. It is not good 
for the economy or the American people.
    Yours truly,
    An American citizen,
    George Huey



MTC-00011557

From: Chris (038) Marcia Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:01am
Subject: MS
    Whatever decision is made, I believe the ease of use by the 
general public is the overwhelming issue. Standardization is very 
important. I really don't care what the standardization is except 
that is should in the user realm, not some companies agenda. I do 
believe that the market place will take care of 99% of all issues. I 
dread the government's involvement. Sometimes elected officials get 
involved when they shouldn't and sometimes they don't get involved 
when they should. I think the economy of the US is much better 
served by Congress when they listen to the public as opposed to a 
few companies which failed in their technology and or marketing.
    Chris Wood
    1155 Victoria Falls Dr
    Redmond, OR 97756
    541-504-9358



MTC-00011558

From: ML Kuzma
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ML Kuzma
77 Worth Ave
Hamden, CT 06518
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marie Kuzma



MTC-00011560

From: Mathur,Ashok N.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Its about time we settled Microsoft case. With the current 
economy any dragging of the case can only hurt the cause of 
recovery.



MTC-00011561

From: Barline, John
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am an attorney, Republican, active citizen, consumer of 
computer hardware and software and daily computer user. I am writing 
to advise that it is my belief that the Microsoft litigation needs 
to be settled and not further litigated. The very software that I am 
using is a result of the good work that Microsoft has done and is 
doing. I feel that to litigate this matter further is a giant waste 
of the taxpayers' money, the government's time, and would 
unnecessarily prolong this process. Let's get on with doing things 
that benefit the country, instead of penalizing a company that has 
only benefited the US in the world and all of us citizens.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    John D. Barline
    Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC
    1301 A Street, Suite 900
    Tacoma, WA 98402-4200
    Phone (253) 593-5620
    Fax (253) 593-5625
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00011562

From: Bob Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    Time to stop this madness. These attacks on our American 
Companies are the main reason our economy and stock markets are in 
the dumps. Time to get the lawyers out of Washington's Federal 
Justice Department and get back to business.
    Bob Walters
    Placerville, CA



MTC-00011563

From: Academy of Music Northwest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Too many lawyers are trying to build a career out of this issue. 
The terms are fair, reasonable, logical, and good for everyone,
except lawyers and malcontents. Let's get on with this settlement 
NOW.
    Thank you,
    Dee Wells,
    VP Finance and Admin.
    Academy of Music Northwest
    425 778 7711



MTC-00011564

From: Jimm Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With all due respect, I have never seen a sorrier excuse as the 
one where thousands of mostly lower income children loose the 
opportunity to learn from new resources valued in the billion(s) 
because of the way antitrust laws are being construed. Why not just 
require Microsft to fund, at whatever amount prescribed, the 
school's choice of computer systems, Microsoft based or otherwise?



MTC-00011565

From: Rod Trent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:06pm
Subject: Anti-Trust case. . . 
    The length of time it is taking to reach a settlement in the 
Microsoft case is horrible. The government has already created a 
very good settlement, and the states not accepting this settlement 
are keeping the country and economy from recovering from 9/11. Let 
Microsoft get back to work and keep making products that provide 
jobs and economic and market value.
    This case is no longer for the benefit of the consumer. 
Consumers aren't even on some of these panels that the government 
has allowed. Bringing folks from AOL, Sun, and NetScape into the mix 
only shows that this case has nothing to do with the consumer. AOL, 
Sun, and NetScape, specifically need to get to work and just create 
competing products. Microsoft has never stopped these companies from 
bearing down and just trying to create better products. They have 
stopped themselves, and in doing so, have only stopped to whine and 
cry. You can't compete, if you don't even try to compete. Its like 
me crying to my mom, asking her to tear up my friend's picture, 
because he's a better artist than I am. And, when I'm older and find 
I still have no artistic talent, do I ask the government to burn 
every piece of artwork in the world because it makes me 
uncomfortable?
    AOL for one, should be under the gun for anti-trust issues. I 
speak to consumers every day, and the majority of them can't 
understand how a company like AOL has not entered into any kind of 
litigation, but Microsoft is forced to be beat on by companies who 
give as much money to the government as Enron.
    If it weren't for Microsoft, these companies would have no one 
to compete with. From this you can see that Microsoft and its 
products actually spur competition. They raise the bar, forcing 
companies to either compete or succumb. What US loyalist can't see 
that as the American way?
    Rod Trent
    Microsoft.MVP.SMS


[[Page 25472]]




MTC-00011566

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT. GET THIS THING BEHIND ALL OF US.
    Luana Miller
    San Rafael, Ca.



MTC-00011567

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:08pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please do not allow bickering between businesses to deprive the 
schools and children to benefit from advancing and keeping up with 
technology that they cannot afford by themselves.
    I believe schools and our well-informed future citizens will be 
able to make intelligent and informed choices in the future.
    LT



MTC-00011568

From: Jody Varner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    My name is Jody Anne Varner and I serve as the Executive 
Director of Hope Unlimited International and like most 
professionals, use MicroSoft products daily.
    I do not agree with the Proposed Final Judgment that you are 
considering. I implore you to cause MicroSoft to have to play by the 
same rules all others do. Please do not let this PFJ stand.
    Sincerely,
    Jody Anne Varner
    Executive Director
    Hope Unlimited International
    415-438-3350



MTC-00011569

From: Stan Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Members:
    I write to you to encourage you to accept the settlement 
proposed by Microsoft. I believe it is fair and putting this affair 
behind us will be an important step towards getting our high-tech 
economy back in productive mode. This will help us here in 
California as it will help the rest of the nation.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Stan & Susan Young
    19903 Summit Drive
    Topanga, CA 90290



MTC-00011570

From: Jack Lawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft support
    I fully support the Microsoft's position in the anti-trust case. 
The settlement agreed to with the Federal Government is just and 
fair. I believe that the states that did not settle are profoundly 
influenced by their corporate constituencies who are motivated by 
competition. They are only out to feather their own nests at 
Microsoft's expense. John W. Lawyer



MTC-00011571

From: Johanna Seth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:11pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have read the recommended documents. I am in favor of 
settlement under the present terms.
    Johanna Seth
    14860-16 Summerlin Woods
    Fort Myers, FL 33919
    941-481-3751



MTC-00011572

From: Jack Richins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:11pm
Subject: Comments on the proposed United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement
    After reading the proposed settlement, I am strongly in favor of 
this settlement. It is fair, rights the wrongs done, and prevents 
future occurrences. This settlement will help end this case, which 
has gone on long enough to detriment of the consumers. Quickly 
accepting this settlement will benefit consumers with a more open 
market with greater innovation and greater competition. And that is 
the purpose of this entire case, is it not?
    Sincerely,
    Jack Richins



MTC-00011573

From: George Howell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a farce. A company has been found to 
be a monopoly, and one that abuses the situation. The proposed 
settlement will strengthen the monopoly, and allow further abuse of 
the power. In addition, the marginal cost to Microsoft to implement 
this remedy are essentially zero.
    A far more rational plan is that suggested by Bob Young of Red 
Hat Inc, wherein Microsoft pays for hardware, and the software is 
provided by a free software vendor.
    A third potential, and one that I advocate is to modify the 
current proposal to have some real teeth. First, Microsoft should 
have to provide cash and/or staff members in dollar amounts annually 
to equal the retail price of the software it is donating. Many 
studies indicate that post sale support is the largest factor in 
computer purchases. Saddling schools with machines and no support is 
worse than doing nothing. Money better spent on books, etc. will be 
directed to computer support. Let Microsoft pay for on site 
personnel. This makes the computers of more use to the schools, and 
also imposes true monetary penalties for their actions.
    Second, this must not be a one-time deal. The computers and 
software must be replaced on a three year schedule (common in all 
industries with computer equipment) and the support staff must be on 
site for the entire three year period.
    Finally, to avoid this being simply a three year slap on the 
wrist, the upgrade cycle should be financed by Microsoft 
indefinitely. When they cease to support this program, they should 
be required to develop a new remedy. In other words, this only buys 
them time. In addition, the amount should be adjusted by the rate of 
inflation as determined by the GAO or some other independent body.
    This proposal will not eliminate the monopoly; it is unlikely 
that anything will. On the other hand, it will force Microsoft to 
pay for the pleasure. Also, some might view this as too harsh, being 
indefinite in nature. The money illegally earned by Microsoft will 
compound year after year unless there is a monetary penalty 
sufficient to eliminate their advantage. This plan modification that 
I suggest would make sure that Microsoft would not be able to take 
advantage of investments made with illegally gotten wealth. The only 
other possibility to prevent this is to impose massive cash payments 
to the respective governments and other plaintiffs.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    George Howell
    [email protected]



MTC-00011574

From: Casey Clan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This misguided action by our government(s) should have ended 
long ago. As a litigation support specialist for Price Waterhouse, I 
participated in the last High Tech witch hunt by the DOJ against IBM 
(with Memorex' help). What a joke! We don't need protection from 
Microsoft.we need protection from our government! Let us decide 
ourselves whether to buy Microsoft's products, and then buy stock in 
the company if we think their profits are excessive. Why don't you 
guys go find some real criminals.
    Please settle this monkey business as soon as possible.
    Kevin Casey



MTC-00011575

From: Ron and Jan Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft case should be settled. What better way to 
have something positive comes out of this. Just think of how many 
children's lives could be changed if they had access to a computer. 
One billion in funding, software and training would make a huge 
difference in our classroom for the better. Just my opinion, for 
what it is worth. I am a grandmother with several grandchildren in 
grade school. Sure would like that benefit for them.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Miller



MTC-00011576

From: David Sagherian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.


[[Page 25473]]



    As a consumer, I am appalled at the manner with which nine 
states are stretching this incredibly convoluted issue further. I am 
a California resident and consider the state's actions 
counterproductive and not representative of my intents and wishes 
and I speak for many who share the same thoughts.
    There has been enormous damage to the consumer out of these 
lawsuits. Much more than the alleged harm they are trying presumably 
to correct? Time to call it a lawsuit and MOVE ON!!!!!!
    David Sagherian
    Glendale California



MTC-00011577

From: Pierce, Jeff
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the court:
    I strongly agree that the Government should accept the proposed 
settlement terms and get the Microsoft case resolved without further 
litigation. The lawsuit is clearly Microsoft's competitors' attempt 
to injure, harm, distract, and frivolously litigate a successful, 
tough American company.
    Please remember the following facts as you consider settlement:
    1) The initial lawsuits were filed after lobbying by Microsoft 
competitors-- not by citizen groups. Read Lawyer Reeback's history.
    2) Microsoft is a monopoly in their own product and can modify 
it as they like. They can expand and add functionality to their 
products just like their vociferous competitors do--Oracle and SUN 
being two of the primary agitators.
    3) There is plenty of choice for all technolgoies. Within the 
information industry, I count just four competitor's revenues (IBM/
SUN/ORACLE/APPLE) at well over $100 Billion dollars in just these 
four named companies. They should develop and market technologies 
that compete on their merits. I don't see Microsoft getting the 
state of Washington to sue IBM for their monopoly on IBM 
mainframes--AND PREDATORY MAINFRAME SOFTWARE PRICING PRACTICES THAT 
ARE WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE INDUSTRY. Why not? People look at 
``disruptive technology choices'' that accomplish business goals by 
choosing from a myriad of other products that accomplish their 
goals. .
    NO CONSUMER HARM
    The biggest legal issue was supposed to be consumer harm. In all 
the documents I read on this court case, I have yet to see 
quantified or estimated damages to consumers. In fact, maybe 
consumers should PAY MICROSOFT for adding valuable features at no 
charge into their products-- features they could otherwise pay for 
to ``competitors''.
    The average selling price of PC hardware combined with Microsoft 
software has fallen probably 66% since I have professionally sold 
computers and networks for a living. Again, a CONSUMER BENEFIT due 
to Microsoft.
    Final Note: I understand some company called Apple Computer 
makes an electronic box without Microsoft software; such box is able 
to mimic functionality provided by Microsoft powered hardware. 
Consumers can order this box today, immediately, on the Internet and 
never have to buy Microsoft. Easy to choose alternatives, isn't it?
    STATES GOVERNMENTS ARE LACKEYS AND CO-CONSPIRATORS
    I am extremely disturbed by states suing on behalf of business 
competitors. As pointed out, there is no consumer harm--just 
business competition through the natural competitiveness of the 
technology industry. The states that choose not to settle should 
have some fairly well defined precedents set by the current 
agreement proposal between the Govt/Settling States and Microsoft. 
Precedents that will stop their continued foolishness in this 
lawsuit.
    Regards,
    Jeff Pierce
    16 Jesse Dr
    Mercerville, NJ 08619
    609-584-8621
    [email protected]
    CC:'jeff(a)pierce.net'



MTC-00011578

From: Hal Kenyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I own Kenyon Drafting & Design and use many Microsoft products. 
Microsoft is a great company!
    I want the settlement to benefit Microsoft as much as possible. 
The more we penalize Microsoft, the more we have to pay for their 
products & services (which are excellent quality).
    Sincerely,
    Hal Kenyon
    www.kenyondrafting.com



MTC-00011579

From: jane mcguigan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot understand the reason these states are objecting to the 
settlement. The taspayers of the US have wasted enough money with 
the Microsoft case. I am more that satisfied with the results of the 
settlement. Let Microsoft get back to their business. I am a user of 
MS products and a shareholder in the company They have complied over 
and above.



MTC-00011580

From: Tuttle,Dino M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:15pm
Subject: Settlement
    A quien corresponda:
    I think the US government should get it's hands off Microsoft 
and give them an apology. Why punish a company for succeeding. If we 
didn't like the product, we'd buy Apple.
    Dino Tuttle
    Box 3169
    Alamo, TX 78516



MTC-00011581

From: Peggy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would personally like to comment upon the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It certainly ``could'' discourage people from striking 
out on their own and striving to be the best. I personally object to 
the whole antitrust case with Microsoft. As Americans we should be 
able to grow our business as much as possible. I am a small company, 
but certainly feel that ``if'' I were to become a LARGE company I 
would feel threatened by government because of this particular 
antitrus case going on today. I think Americans should be free, with 
no interference from government--unless fraud is going on - and I do 
not think it is with Microsoft. They have great products, and 
because they have developed something of far superior quality to 
other companies, they are being stiffled and punished. I truly do 
believe it is a crime--and the results of some poor losers' attempts 
to discredit someone that did better in their plans, production and 
products, than they.
    Thank you,
    Peggy Page, 13525 N. Lon Adams Road, Marana, Arizona 85653--520-
682-4326



MTC-00011582

From: George Burch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft--a consumer viewpoint
    This is just another typical pissing away of the public's money. 
Microsoft has done nothing wrong. It only happens that the 
competition is not willing to dig into their pockets to play and the 
DOJ and the Congress saw it as an opportunity to look like they give 
a shit about the public. Fact: If I owned the concession on air, to 
get it you would have to pay. It is called capitalism. Press on with 
your inane exercise. It is why you guys work for the government. You 
would not last a second in the real world.
    George
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011583

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We need to thank Bill Gates and Microsoft for what they have 
done for this country and technology instead of suing him. Where 
would we be without Microsoft and computers?
    We live in America to have the freedom to innovate and make 
discoveries that will benefit Americans. One of our freedoms is 
capitalism. When a man and his company is successful, do we then sue 
him and try to take his rights away as an American. We need to end 
these lawsuits now and give Microsoft the freedom it deserves to 
invent new products that help us all in business and in schools.
    Joanne Leonard
    Hollywood, Florida



MTC-00011584

From: laura
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement


[[Page 25473]]


    The consumers have not been hurt by Microsoft. The nine states 
pursuing the suit against Microsoft are representing competitors-not 
consumers. The settlement with the government should have brought 
this matter to close.
    Paul Stout



MTC-00011585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:20pm
Subject: Priorities
    I urge that the government close its case against Microsoft and 
concentrate on matters of more importance to the American people 
than persecuting a company which is more responsible that most 
entities in this country (private or governmental) for the 90's 
booming economy.
    Joan Hamaker



MTC-00011586

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With the uncertainty of the economy, the Microsoft suit demands 
closure so we can all get back to normal. Please move this case to a 
conclusion.
    Robert Hines, San Diego, CA



MTC-00011587

From: Stephen Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I almost don't care how you settle this Microsoft case, but 
please settle it.
    Seriously, this has been going on for far too long.
    Stephen Quinn, Test Mgr
    ``The more I want to get something done, the less I call it 
work.''--R. Bach http://www.ag.wastholm.net/author/Ashleigh--
Brilliant> .NET Enterprise Server, SQL Business Intelligence
    Office Phone: 425.703.5351, Cell Phone: 425.829.3727



MTC-00011588

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was very disappointed to learn that US District Judge J. 
Fredrick Motz rejected a settlement that would have resolved the 
class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft.
    Enough is enough! First we had an incompetent and obviously 
biased Judge Penfield and now this. We are still reeling from the 
attack of 9/11. Our country is at war, our economy in a shambles, 
thousands of citizens are out of work and thousands more will 
shortly join them. I thought Microsoft made a great offer that would 
have benefited the company, the country and the underprivileged but 
apparently there are those who are hell bent on destroying a great 
company, major employer and generous benefactor.
    Could it be that the goal is to transfer more of our business to 
Asia or is it to pander to the incompetent and jealous competition 
here at home? In the interest of all concerned, it is time to settle 
this case for once and for all.
    Then we can direct all of our legal resources and skills towards 
salvaging the savings, pensions and jobs of the unfortunate citizens 
ravaged in the horrific, real and major scandal now at hand:-Enron.
    Very truly yours,
    Maureen J. Killeen



MTC-00011589

From: Dave Garvie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please, let's settle the Microsoft case, and let them get back 
to business.
    Dave Garvie



MTC-00011590

From: mookie1173
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:25pm
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel the lawsuit against Microsoft should not be allowed to 
continue. I feel the current set of measures agreed to by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice are sufficient and to continue 
litigation will unnecessarily prolong this country's current 
economic problems. I feel the final outcome will be the same anyway 
since the current set of sanctions are fair and reasonable. I feel 
that this litigation has undermined this country's faith in the 
future of the entire technology sector. It has done much more harm 
than any transgressions ever made by Microsoft. I am glad that this 
happened, but I think it's now time to move on. I hope we will soon 
be able to put this situation behind us. I'm sure there are many 
other more constructive ways to use the court's time.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Hamblin



MTC-00011591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please settle the case with Microsoft quickly and in a fair 
manner so that Microsoft and our economy are not hurt further.



MTC-00011592

From: Ben Trevathan Allied Worldwide
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    As a Microsoft shareholder (as well as an owner of shares in 
most of Microsoft's major competitors), I would like to exercise my 
right to comment on the proposed settlement. Other than my ownership 
of shares and my use of Microsoft products, I derive no benefit, 
directly or indirectly, from Microsoft and am not employed in the 
technology industry.
    The prior administration commenced an action against Microsoft 
that was not sought by the marketplace. The destructive impact of 
this course of action has been aptly chronicled by the evaporation 
of tens of billions of shareholder wealth, not just at Microsoft, 
but among its competitors as well. Microsoft enjoys its current 
market position not because of any nefarious plot, but directly as 
the result of providing a valuable product that the consumer has 
chosen freely and often. As was the case with IBM in the 1970's, no 
company--especially one that is competing in an arena in which 
innovation today can render last year's necessity obsolete--can 
enjoy a monopoly without the intervention of government. It is cruel 
irony that it is the intervention of government which now punishes a 
company victorious in the free and unfettered technology marketplace 
in order to enrich competitors whose success came not from that 
marketplace but from generously opening their wallets to Washington 
influence.
    The current administration has the opportunity to return the 
nation - at least in this one instance--to a path in which freedom 
and innovation are rewarded and success or failure are determined by 
the people who participate in the market, not by the purchased power 
of government for sale to the highest bidder. As has always been the 
case, the path of freedom requires courage in the face of determined 
opposition. For the several years that this action has been pursued, 
we have as a nation followed a dark and dangerous course designed to 
overturn a verdict rendered collectively by the people. It is a 
dynamic verdict that is subject to change at any moment. But it is 
the people, voting daily in a free marketplace, and not the 
government who must either affirm or cast aside that verdict. 
History has demonstrated repeatedly and unanimously that when 
governments intercede to force their will upon the marketplace, the 
price borne by the people is significant. The Department of Justice 
should support the settlement of its action against Microsoft. It is 
the first step back onto the correct path-- a path determined anew 
everyday by the people, not set by the government.
    Ben Trevathan
    Business Executive
    MBA University of Chicago



MTC-00011593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am sending this note to express my concern for the proposed 
antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft, The provisions of 
the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, 
and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling. The 
settlement is good for consumer and the American economy. We need to 
move beyond this litigation. As a country we have more important 
thing to deal with like national security and America economy.
    I urge you to settle this case with Microsoft which is the best 
interest for this country at this time.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely yours,
    Stephanie Davis



MTC-00011594

From: Clyde Tatman
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25475]]



Date: 1/15/02  2:25pm
Subject: mocrosoft settlement
    This has gone on long enough. I believe MS is being sued because 
it is large and successful. Since the Fed. has initiated a suit the 
states should keep their nose or collective noses out of it.



MTC-00011595

From: Minder, Stephen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems that the USA needs to get the Microsoft case behind us. 
Please urge the parties to agree to a settlement that allows 
competition, but also allows one of America's most important 
strategic companies to continue to operate.
    Stephen W. Minder



MTC-00011596

From: Bob Sanborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get this litigation behind us. I believe the 
proposed settlement is fair and just. As a citizen I would like to 
get this behind us for the good of the country. Please settle this 
as soon as possible and avoid any further litigation.
    Robert W. Sanborn
    5406 W. University Blvd.
    Dallas, TX 75209
    214-352-9630



MTC-00011597

From: H. G. Bare
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please be advised that I strenuously object to any and all 
further litigation against Micro$oft in regard to delaying the 
proposed settlement. I especially object on the grounds that, as a 
Massachusetts resident, I am now forced to see my state tax dollars 
spent on useless pursuit of political gain for the incumbent 
Attorney General, who is only interested in getting free TV air 
time, not my best interests.
    Sincerely,
    Heather G. Bare
    265 Braley Hill Road
    Rochester, MA 02770-1907
    [email protected]



MTC-00011598

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is time to settle the Microsoft lawsuit, and stop litigating! 
The litigation is hurting the economy. The only beneficiaries of the 
litigation are the trial lawyers.
    Sincerely,
    Barton L. Hartzell
    836 2nd. Ave., #302
    Kirkland, WA. 98033



MTC-00011599

From: RICK MARCINIAK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case even if you increase the fine 100 
million. So there are 9 states against the solution. That's pretty 
good out of 50 states. If that was the vote in Congress or the 
Senate it would be a no brainer. PLEASE, let's put this behind us.
    Thank You
    Rick Marciniak, 1065 Gator Trail, WPB, FL. 33409



MTC-00011600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I strongly believe that the Microsoft case should be soon 
settled as proposed and all additional litigation discontinued.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos A. Baanante



MTC-00011601

From: Cleon Seguin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:31pm
Subject: litagation
    The case against Microsoft is not about anti trust it is about 
the freedom of interprize to get ahead in a competive maner. The 
states are only after a free ride in the developement of new 
produces. Why should Microsoft have to give up there trade secrets 
anymore than General Motors. As for a monoply how about the car 
companys You have to buy Ford parts to fix a ford car as well as the 
rest of the car companys. How about Boeing , they have 100% monoply 
on airplanes. Microsoft has given a huge amount of settlement offer. 
Tell the states to go to hell and develope there own products.
    Cleon a Seguin
    7814 s,112th, st. Seattle wa.
    206 772 6798
    [email protected]



MTC-00011602

From: jason dennis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    As a software engineer by trade, I wish to comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I would add that I'm not an employee or contracted to Microsoft 
and do not have shares in the company.
    Whilst Microsoft may be guilty of bad practices, I feel that the 
settlement is fair. The company should not be broken up, nor should 
it be made to give up to another company the Windows or Office 
product. America is built on a freedom to make money by giving 
something the end-users want, if the end-user wants Microsoft then 
let them choose. Oracle complains but it's software is only used on 
high-end machines, how does it know what the end-user wants.
    Please let the Microsoft settlement stand. So everyone can move 
forward, developing in a situation where you don't know if the 
company who's products you are using will be around in 6 months or 
they are changing to something different is very disheartening.
    Regards,
    Jason Dennis



MTC-00011603

From: Sean Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe it is now time to settle the Microsoft anti-trust 
lawsuit, as well as, all the civil lawsuits. The company has been 
found guilt. Now please pick a punishment and let's move on. By 
dragging on the settlement talks, the only winners are the lawyers, 
not the consumers, which is suppose to be the intended winners. 
Please just pick a punishment and stop all the legal wrangling.
    Thank you,
    Sean Callahan
    Gilbert, AZ



MTC-00011604

From: BOB KADECHKA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:29pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE DROP THIS MATTER!



MTC-00011605

From: Paul Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1055 Doylestown Pike?xml:namespace 
prefix = o ns = ``urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office'' /> 
Quakertown, PA 18951 January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I have used Microsoft products for 12 years. Microsoft software 
is one of the few things in America that works well. It makes my job 
easier. All the Microsoft products work well together as it should 
be. As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I am writing to 
voice my opinions on the settlement, which has been reached in the 
three-year antitrust case against Microsoft. It pleases me to know 
that a settlement has been reached by the all of the parties 
involved.
    Microsoft will not be getting off easy, as others would lead you 
to believe. The company has agreed to document and disclose for use 
by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to Windows 
operating system products. This is a first in an antitrust 
settlement
    Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that run on software that competes with Windows.
    Please let Microsoft alone. It isn't broke don't try to fix 
them. I ask that no more action be taken on the Federal level 
against Microsoft. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Johnston
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Paul A. Johnston
    Asplundh
    Quality Assurance
    Phone: 215-784-1448
    Email: [email protected]


[[Page 25476]]





MTC-00011606

From: Roland Pohlman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:33pm
Subject: microsoft needs help
    Please leave Microsoft alone to innovate and design new products 
for all of us! They have been punished enough. Thank you



MTC-00011607

From: Diane (038) Roland Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft, like Ford, in the early 1900's, has done the world a 
favor, by establishing a standard that was very much needed to make 
everyone's computer system compatible and therefore useable, at a 
time when there was no other compatibility between users. For this, 
they should be punished? Only greedy, self seeking men would attempt 
to punish progress in the excepted American way of freedom to create 
and build in this great country. Long live the Henry Fords and Bill 
Gates of this world. HE.OR. Freeman



MTC-00011608

From: Jack Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of this communication is to express my opinion 
regarding the Microsoft settlement.
    I believe that the original settlement should have been 
sufficient to end this matter and enable all of us to go back to 
work without the distraction of additional politically motivated 
harassment of the Microsoft Corporation. I am of the opinion that 
Microsoft offers for sale products that are generally superior to 
any others on the market, and that their prices are reasonable. 
Further, there are alternatives to these products and anyone wishing 
to avail themselves of other products has the freedom to do so. 
Having worked it's way through the minefields created by the Federal 
government, Microsoft is now being hounded by State Attorneys 
General who no doubt have visions of another ``Tobacco Settlement'' 
bonanza dancing in their heads, another crusade to fill the State 
coffers on the pretext of upholding the rights of the aggrieved 
``victims'' of yet another greedy corporation. I ask that you bring 
this matter to an expeditions conclusion and save all of us money 
that will otherwise be wasted in further litigation. In the end it 
is the consumer who pays.
    Thank you.
    John J. Sheehan
    Jack Sheehan
    45 Lenor Drive
    Harwinton, CT 06791
    860-485-1260
    [email protected]



MTC-00011609

From: Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I would like to submit my views to you on the 
Microsoft Settlement Case. I think this case has gone on much too 
long and it is time to resolve it for the benefit of the American 
people. It is time to move on.
    I have been a consumer of Microsoft products for over a decade 
because I prefer Microsoft products. I am well aware that there are 
other software products that I could choose to use instead of 
Microsoft, i.e. Linux operating system instead of Windows, but I 
prefer Windows. So do many, many other consumers.
    This case should be brought to a close as soon as possible.
    Ellen Warren



MTC-00011610

From: Randy Hinrichs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:34pm
Subject: Response
    The 9 remaining constituents that want to pursue litigation 
against Microsoft need to wake up! It is abominable that they would 
use the justice system to continue down the path of getting the 
government to help them with their competitive strategy. It seems 
that they are not going to be satisfied until Microsoft is so 
neutered that it is impossible for it to continue doing business in 
a way that helps the american economy and provides very decent 
business processes.
    We begged for someone in the 80s to consolidate the various 
datasets and enable/empower the end user to be able to share data, 
work interoperably between mainframes, and bring sublime expertise 
into software, so we would be much less reliant upon individual 
software vendors to come in with their consultants, their MIS 
directors, etc. to help us build a simple spreadsheet, or document 
management environment. So, Microsoft enters the picture and works 
toward consolidating a PC environment for empowering the digital 
worker. They did it right. They did it to the glee of the buyer, as 
is evidenced by the extreme popularity of the software environment. 
The customers simply did not suffer. In fact, being a Microsoft 
employee, I've never heard a customer tell me that Microsoft did 
them wrong. They only tell me how powerful the software is, and how 
it helps them get things done!
    As Microsoft expanded its own knowledge of the computing 
environment, it looked for improved processes, improved software 
archtiectures, improved features. They innovated to the delight of 
the consumer, again evidenced by the popularity of the Office 
Products, the OS iterations both as clients and servers, then as a 
browser, enabling emancipated publishing to the web. Then, the web 
enters the picture as a huge opportunity for international global 
digital development and Mirosoft simply changes its focus to a new 
platform that would help internationalize digital business 
processes.
    The competitors need to compete on innovative capability, not 
further litigation. Get back to work! This is a time we need unity 
and parity, not division and imbalance. These 9 constituents need to 
work harder to figure out how to build enabling and empowering tools 
for the end user, not looking for ways to dig into the Microsoft 
coffers that are targeted for improving business, education and 
human society. We speak a lingua franca because of Microsoft and 
it's what we asked for, we cannot blame Microsoft for enabling us 
with its lingua franca and enormous capabilities to perform as 
businesses.
    Whatever errors in judgement were made by the burgeoning, never 
before seen software industry with Microsoft at its helm have been 
addressed with a settlement put in place that accomodates for this 
evolution. Microsoft is not a malicious company. I moved here myself 
from Sun, and I find the company to be mature, principled, focused, 
innovative and strongly competitive. They were young kids when they 
started (in their 20s), and they emerged quickly, learned hard 
lessons, and have been focused on enabling people since then. This 
is not your father's Microsoft, it is a new Microsoft, and it is 
focused on helping people with software as never before. There are 
no barriers to entry. There are no monopolies preventing any company 
from entering this industry. In fact, Microsoft with its new .NET 
strategy is only going to enable more developers, and more 
businesses to succeed worldwide.
    Let them alone. Let this settlement get us back to business of 
helping customers, and send a strong message back to these 9 
consitutents who want to drag this out that you cannot use the 
government as a competitive advantage. The government is neutral, 
meant to make it fair for all. We cannot allow our democratic system 
favor one individual over another.
    Randy J. Hinrichs
    Group Research Manager
    Learning Sciences and Technology
    Microsoft Research
    1 Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    http://www.learningwebservices.com http://
www.learningwebservices.com/> 1-425-703-5524



MTC-00011611

From: David Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have seen no benefit to the citizens of the United States by 
the action taken by the Department of Justice with regards to Civil 
Action No. 98-1232 United States vs. Microsoft Corporation. I 
believe it has been a complete waist of government resources and has 
done harm to the United States economy, the industry as a hole and 
the citizens of the United States. Although I personally do not 
agree with Department of Justice case in general, I do feel that a 
quick settlement would greatly benefit our county. With regards to 
the settlement I believe it is extreme, unwarranted and unjustified.
    Sincerely
    David G. Davis



MTC-00011612

From: Carmor(a)amug.org
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

    U.S. Department of Justice
    Microsoft Settlement Hearing
    To Whom It May Concern:


[[Page 25477]]


    I urge the Department of Justice to settle the current 
litigation brought brought by nine states in their dispute with 
Microsoft. It is in the best interests of all Americans to bring 
this divisive litigation to a conclusion. At this point only the 
lawyers are profiting.
    Sincerely,
    Carla Moring



MTC-00011613

From: Michael S. Guillory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For god's sake, settle this thing and let us get on with the 
business at hand-reviving the economy and protecting the country and 
our position in the world. Also, the individual litigation should be 
settled. The school systems would benefit and this would benefit 
children and the country.
    Michael S. Guillory



MTC-00011614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Send the lawyers home.
    Let Microsoft get on with their business.
    Ken Stutzman



MTC-00011615

From: Marj/Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement as currently configured is a fair one 
and should go forward.
    Marjorie A. Lynn



MTC-00011616

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please bring this matter to a conclusion with a speedy 
settlement. Thank you.
    B.A. Wilcoxson, a microsoft shareholder.



MTC-00011617

From: Jeffries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    After reviewing the settlement as presented, I find the 
settlement best for all concerned.



MTC-00011618

From: J. Alley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case ASAP.
    Jane D. Alley
    19641 20th Ave. N.E.
    Seattle, WA 98155



MTC-00011619

From: Kathy Beardsley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer of Microsoft products. I believe they are working 
in the best interest of the general public, and I believe the 
stettlement should stand as is.
    Thank you.
    Mary Beardsley
    CC:Mary K Beardsley



MTC-00011620

From: Marj/Ed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement.
    Edwin Lynn



MTC-00011621

From: ARNOLD SEIDON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle now. Microsoft is very generous in their offer. Don't 
kill the gouse that we are all dependent on.
    Arnold



MTC-00011622

From: monde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The matter needs to be settled in a way that does not end up 
being a boon for Microsoft. The school donation looked all warm and 
fuzzy but I agree with those who suggest that it is just helping 
Microsoft get a big chunk of the educational market. Let us not 
forget here that Microsoft broke the law. It just does not seem 
right that they should get away with it while people who break other 
laws (many of them victimless crimes) end up in prison. -- note: my 
@ddress is [email protected] [email protected] is no longer 
functional site unseen? see: http://involution.org



MTC-00011623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MY OPINION NOW, BASED ON THE COURTS ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT 
AGREEMENT, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING LITIGATION AGAINST 
MICROSOFT FOR THE BENEFIT OF LESS THAN 20% OF THE STATES. THESE 
HOLDOUT STATES ARE IMPEDING THE FINALIZATION OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS, 
AND IN DOING SO, IN MY PERSPECTIVE, ARE NOT DOING THE CITIZENS OF 
THOSE STATES THE GOOD THEY PERCEIVE. RATHER THEY ARE HOLDING THE DOJ 
AND MICROSOFT FOR RANSOM AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 82% OF THE NATION WHO 
ACCEPT THE COURTS ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL.
    SINCERELY,
    DAVID RICHARD
    INGALLS
    NAPERVILLE,(DUPAGE COUNTY) ILLINOIS



MTC-00011624

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I read this article that gave this email address for opinions on 
the Microsoft settlement. First, although irrelevant at this point, 
I have to say I think Microsoft has contributed more to the growth 
and productivity of this country than anyone else that comes to 
mind. With the development of Window concept, it has made the 
operation of personal computers available to non-computer people. 
Thus it has attributed greatly in making computers user friendly 
enough that ordinary people can use them. As a result of this 
development, Windows became the software of choice. I remember when 
everytime you bought something for the computer you had to see if it 
was ``IBM compatable'' or not. No one could focus on software 
development because of compatability problems. Windows eliminated 
that and almost all software developers worked toward making their 
software compatable with Windows. Thus Windows became the universal 
software.
    I always thought the DOJ's involvement was more for the benefit 
of competitors than consumers. In all industries, inferior 
competitors complain about being at a disadvantage. In the long run, 
the antitrust case against Microsoft, in my opinion, had more 
potential to hurt comsumers than to help them. I'm not a computer 
geek and I can barely operate one without assistance but windows has 
made my life easier when it does come to using a computer.
    My mother is a librarian and has been able to obtain free 
hardware and software from a Microsoft grant. Many people in Greenup 
County Kentucky has benefited by the generosity of Microsoft. Their 
grant was for $50,000. Anyone in Greenup County can come to the 
library and use the computers and internet.
    One lady downloaded a picture of her new grandchild or great 
grandchild (I forgot which) from a website in California. They 
offered internet training sessions for senior citizens. None of this 
possible without Microsoft. I don't see the library getting anything 
from Walmart (the world's largest retailer and likely the largest 
antitrust violator in this country!!)
    Yes I think the settlement with Microsoft is acceptable and the 
DOJ should agree to settle the case and move on to a more important 
use of our tax dollars. The State AG's that are bucking the 
settlement, I think, want cash money for their States so they can 
further their individual causes. If you have any questions 
concerning my position you can contact me at the email address on 
this correspondence.



MTC-00011625

From: Dave Meltzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    just wanted to voice my support for the proposed settlement. 
i've been using microsoft software for nearly two decades and have 
been amazed at how much value i get for the money. the settlement 
terms seem more than fair to consumers and the world economy needs 
this settled too.



MTC-00011626

From: Glenn Hyatt


[[Page 25478]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:50pm
Subject: Settle Now!
    Leave Microsoft alone! Be done with it now! Don't force 
Microsoft to pack up and leave this land of harassment ( once free 
). Get the government out of business and our lives!
    Glenn Hyatt



MTC-00011627

From: O'Neal, Miles (038) Lola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to stop further action against Microsoft. The 
settlement should be accepted. I am old enough to remember computers 
before Microsoft integrated programs to work together smoothly, 
trying to put together a working home system. . let alone a working 
office system. . was a nightmare. In my book they are heroes not 
villains. Leave them alone.
    Lola O'Neal



MTC-00011628

From: Sheila Fass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I firmly believe that the start of the downturn in the economy 
started with the persecution of Microsoft. The only way out of this 
slump is to settle this mess once and for all. Just think of the 
progress in communication we owe to Microsoft. With their 
innovations we have become one world in communication. It would have 
taken decades to reach this level without Microsoft. They deserve 
some leeway in marketing methods to have a continued impact on 
international distribution of knowledge.
    sincerely: Sheila Fass [email protected]



MTC-00011629

From: charles jenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:52pm
    Dear Sirs, The nine states that have not agreed to the Microsoft 
settlement are not acting n the best interests of consumers, of 
which my wife and I are two, not in the best interests of the 
economy as a whole. I urge you not to heed their cry but to proceed 
to settlement. I wish that I had had the opportunity to testify on 
behalf of Microsoft during the trial.
    Sincerely yours,
    Charles R. Jenner



MTC-00011630

From: Ian Lance Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to say that I think that the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust suit against Microsoft is weak and ineffective. While 
it addresses part of Microsoft's past behaviour, it does not address 
their past conduct with regard to squashing innovation in the 
computer industry. Where the settlement is appropriate, as in the 
disclosure of protocols, it appears to have been carefully crafted 
to avoid requiring disclosure to free software programmers, although 
free software such as Samba is the most common case requiring 
protocol information, and is the most significant competitor to 
Microsoft today.
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement, and search for a 
settlement which will properly address the profoundly negative 
impact Microsoft has had on the U.S. computer industry.
    Respectfully,
    Ian Taylor
    103 Winfield St.
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    415 550-9004
    [email protected]



MTC-00011631

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    The appropriate time and diligence has been dedicated to the 
Microsoft settlement and the recent settlement is both fair and 
tough to Microsoft. I encourage the Department of Justice to 
complete this settlement, as it stands, and pave the way for the US 
consumer, Microsoft, other software/hardware companies and American 
business to move forward. We certainly know that moving forward is 
good for our country, particularly in these difficult times.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra O. Myskowski
    Sandra O. Myskowski, CEO
    Sandbill Enterprises, Inc.
    1016 Baker Road
    Sinking Spring, Pa 19608
    Email: [email protected]
    Phone: 610-698-7056



MTC-00011632

From: AUSSIEALLEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:53pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTELMENT
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. THANK YOU, JEFF S. ALLEN



MTC-00011633

From: Lucien Bomar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    lb StationeryDear Sirs:
    I strongly urge you to complete the current Microsoft settlement 
under the currently proposed terms. It is long past time to conclude 
this matter.
    I believe the remedy is just and substantial. It is important 
that we maintain a viable Microsoft. In my career (30 years), I have 
twice make major purges of software form my companies. The first was 
largely getting rid of 5.25 floppy based software and the second 
getting rid of software on 3.5 floppies. Each time I wondered what 
happened to the companies that had developed the programs that I had 
invested in that subsequently disappeared. I later found that most 
had made their Millions, cashed out their stock and moved to 
mountain villas like Aspen. Microsoft on the other hand has been a 
constant and has continued to develop new and innovative products 
while maintaining backward compatibility with their early products. 
Their products are inexpensive and easy for my employees to use, 
understand and get support for during the software lifetime. For a 
business owner it is important to know that the company I invest in 
(by purchasing software) will be here in the future and will supply 
support for the products I invest in. Microsoft has proven itself up 
to the task. Microsoft continues to supply the best (by far) 
customer and Partner support on the planet. In addition it has 
created a Worldwide support group of non-Microsoft specialist that 
support it's products.
    I will continue to support Microsoft because Microsoft supports 
me.
    Thank you,
    Lucien C. Bomar
    Senior Member, IEEE
    [email protected]



MTC-00011634

From: Richard Klinkner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:57pm
    Please proceed with the settlement with Microsoft ; it is fair 
to all parties.
    Richard L. Klinkner, A Consumer



MTC-00011635

From: Davar Shokoh-Alai
To: Microsoft ATR,Susan Alai
Date: 1/15/02  2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How I wish the government would not try to force competitive 
advantages for one company over another. Accept this settlement but 
make it more fair for Microsoft and lower the requirements placed on 
a pro-consumer company that has opened doors for our country in 
unimaginable ways. When IBM tried to stranglehold us to their 
mainframes and Sunw to their boxes, and Oracle to their painful 
overcharged and painful to deploy database offerings, it was only 
Microsoft that dared to take on these big guys and offer more 
powerful and easier to use systems for customers.
    Being in the technical management side of the house for 7+ years 
now and with 17+ years of business management experience, I know how 
hard it is to discern truth from error when it comes to technical 
offerings and respective sales pitches; however, it has been so 
clear that Microsoft is always looking for a way to make it easier 
to add technological advantages to businesses at a much lower cost. 
Meanwhile, IBM, Sunw and Oracle have continued to fight them at 
every front in order to keep the prices at unreachable places and 
charge us their outrageous consulting fees to deploy their 
``solutions''.
    I can not believe how much Microsoft has agreed to give into the 
government just to settle this and allow our economy to move forward 
once again! What is even more unbelievable is that 9 of the state 
attorneys are trying to get more for the competitive companies in 
their states. Maybe it is considered politics as usual, but it needs 
to stop now. Settle this case but make it a lot better for Microsoft 
since they have gone so far in their offer to settle this case. 
disclosure: I have sold IBM, Microsoft and Oracle solutions and 
speak from across the board experience.


[[Page 25479]]





MTC-00011636

From: Konrad M.Kempfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This is to support the settlement in the Microsoft case. The 
case should not continue to be litigated. It is not in the public 
interest to continue litigation. The settlement proposed is fair.
    We do not need our own justice department and states to weaken 
one of America's best companies while the Europeans and the World 
Trade Organization are out to harm our industries. We need to 
protect our industries.
    Respectfully
    Konrad M.Kempfe



MTC-00011637

From: Kathy Gooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally
    I am writing to you today to express my intense disapproval of 
the Proposed Final Judgment announced by the Justice Department 
regarding the Microsoft case. Having followed the review by the 
Federal Courts during the past three years of the Microsoft 
antitrust case, in which they proclaimed that Microsoft repeatedly 
and forcefully violated U.S. antitrust laws and was liable for its 
illegal conduct, I am very much alarmed by the PFJ. I am also aware 
that recently a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that 
Microsoft had clearly violated antitrust laws and that any 
government settlement with Microsoft must have three key elements: 
a) Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly, b). Deny to Microsoft the 
fruits of its past violations, and c). Prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity.
    So, my question is, why has the Justice Department cut a back-
room deal with Microsoft that fails to meet any of these three 
standards? I hope that as you review my response to the Justice 
Department's deal, and others like it, you will recognize the severe 
mistake that we would be making as a country to ignore what is right 
here. Please help protect public trust in our Government, the 
interests of the non-Microsoft developers? community, and the rights 
of all software users by ensuring that Microsoft is held accountable 
for their long-standing antitrust abuses. Thank you for taking the 
time to review my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Kathy Gooley



MTC-00011638

From: Hackley E. Woodford, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In view of our economy and post 911, the war, massive 
unemployment and recession, how could anyone feel honestly justified 
in holding up social and economic progress by voting against the 
Microsoft Settlement? Is it competition, jealousy, negativism 
favoritism, conspiracy, dishonesty, ignorance or What?
    Microsoft is an American company. They are big and make money 
because they earn it.
    Microsoft is not the Enemy, they are the Benefactors.
    Agree to the Microsoft Settlement and watch the economy improve.
    CC:Hackley E. Woodford



MTC-00011639

From: Charles Porter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Dear Justice:
    It is very clear that no settlement with Microsoft will stop 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. Microsoft has a consistent 
strategy of entering markets that are not being closely watched, and 
of violating laws in subtle enough ways, that the motivation to stop 
the behavior does not become sufficient to be effective until 
Microsoft has effectively destroyed all competition in the target 
market, and erected prohibitive barriers to entry, making any 
constraint on the company's behavior irrelevant.
    Microsoft is currently engaged in such a campaign to dominate 
the Internet Service Provider ( ISP) Market. In addition to 
legitimate strategies such as buying shares in existing ISP;s like 
ATT@home, and developing their own ISP business through the MSN.com 
business, they are engaged in predatory practices which create 
effective barriers to large numbers of consumers from doing business 
with any ISP other then MSN.
    Microsoft has an agreement to assume all residential Digital 
Subscriber Line (DSL) accounts from QWest in thirteen western 
states. Prior to this agreement, selecting an ISP in these states 
was very much like selecting a long distance carrier. QWest owned 
the line from the house to the central office, an receives a fee for 
running DSL over that line. The consumer could then freely choose 
from at least dozens of ISP's to carry the traffic from there to the 
internet. One option for an ISP was QWest's own ISP service 
Qwest.net. If a consumer is unhappy with an ISP, Qwest would switch 
them to another within a day or two and for a small fee. Under the 
agreement with QWest, all of QWest.net customers are transferred to 
Microsoft. If a customer failed to opt-out before the deadline of 
November 30, 2001, they would be transferred to MSN. Once the 
account is transferred to MSN, the consumers relationship with QWest 
is severed. The customer of record for the DSL service is shifted 
from Qwest to MSN. This means that Qwest has no control over the 
customers line, and is unable to shift the consumer to an alternate 
ISP. Additionally MSN refuses to permit connection to a coveting 
ISP. The only available option is to ``Unprovision the Line'', which 
means to disconnect the DSL service altogether, not just from the 
telephone office to the internet, but from the consumers home to the 
central office. To make it additionally difficult, the 
``unprovisioning'' process takes 30 days. ( Changing from another 
ISP to MSN takes only 30 seconds via a Qwest Web page.) Allowing 
user to opt-out of MSN only by unprovisioning the line is analogous 
to Sprint saying that the only way to change long-distance carriers 
is to disconnect your telephone, and then pay to have it 
reconnected, for the normal new service charges at the time. In 
fact, unprovisioning the DSL service often does include 
disconnecting the telephone service itself, though Qwest will claim 
that this is accidental.
    Incidentally, at the time of making the new connection it is 
difficult to find any options for an ISP other than MSN.
    Qwest has taken the additional step of raising the price of a 
new DSL connection to $I00, creating an additional barrier to 
changing ISP.
    Since Microsoft is the majority ISP, most consumers are barred 
from switching away from Microsoft.
    I raise this issue, not because I think the Justice department 
should be stopping this practice, but because it is strong evidence 
that Microsoft has not intention of changing its behavior. 
Information technology changes extremely quickly. By the time 
Justice is able to stop any particular anti-competitive practice, 
that practice is irrelevant. The only solution is to remove the 
power which Microsoft cannot resist abusing. As serious an issue as 
removing competition in the ISP market is, it is relatively small 
issue compared to Microsoft's stated objective: control of the 
internet. Under this plan, for every commercial transaction over the 
internet, Microsoft will be paid several times:
--once by the consumer for access to the internet, via MSN ISP 
service
--once by the customer for use of the windows operating system 
(Microsoft is moving from selling windows to selling subscriptions 
to windows)
--once by the vendor from whom the consumer purchases for validation 
of the users identification via Microsoft's passport service,.
--several times by the vendor for several licenses of the Windows 
server software and web-site software.
--once by the vendor for use of Microsoft financial services 
currently in development, for the actual transfer of funds
--and more ominously, many more times for selling the information 
gathered about the consumer while collecting all of the other 
transactions.
    This is just about a simple purchase. I have left out all of the 
use of Microsoft products in fulfillment of the order and in 
marketing the product.
    Attached is some background material on the QWest/Microsoft case 
from the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
    I am available to provide additional information, should you 
wish it.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Charles Porter
    Appendixes:
    My complaint to the Washington state attorney general:
    Web Site Consumer Informal Complaint Form: Thank you for using 
the WUTC Web Site. Use this form to submit complaints to the 
Consumer Affairs Section
    Statewide Toll Free: 1-800-562-6150


[[Page 25480]]



    Local: 360-664-1120
    Hearing Impaired--TTY: 360-586-8203
    Your Name(required): Charles Porter
    Your Address: Street address: 810--30th Ave
    (We need your City: Seattle, address in State: WA order to Zip: 
98122 process your comment)
    Your County: USA
    Phone Numbers: Home: 206-568-3404
    Day/Work: 425-455-7601 x231
    Your E-Mail address: charles, [email protected]
Date: 11/30/2001  
    Utility or Transportation Company Information
    Company Name: Qwest, Microsoft
    Company street Address: City______ State______ Zip______
    Your Account Number: 206-568-3404 If your know your Account 
Number, be sure to include it. About Your Complaint Have you tried 
to resolve the dispute with your utility or transportation company?
    (*)Yes
    ( ) No
    If ``yes,'' what was the result? no change
    Please explain your complaint in detail:
    Qwest has been providing my home with internet service via 
digital subscriber line (DSL). This service only connects my house 
physically to QWest's offices. In addition to DSL provider, it is 
necessary to have an internet service provider (ISP), that connects 
my line from Qwest to the internet. QWest has been providing my ISP 
service as well. Qwest informed me that I must change my internet 
provider (ISP) to Microsoft' MSN service by November 31, 2001, or I 
would be swithed automaticaly. Immediately after performing the 
switching operation via the Qwest web site on Sunday Oct 22, I 
learned that the MSN service had several ``features'' and 
requirements that are different from those provided by Qwest. I 
decided that I should investigate other ISP's. To faciliate this 
more considered change, within 30 minutes of initiating the 
changeover to MSN, I tried to cancel the change both by contacting 
Qwest and MSN via email and several telepone numbers, including 
sales, and customer support at both organizations. I attempted both 
to restore my Qwest service and to change directly to another ISP. 
The upshot was that I could not cancel the changeover, and that I 
could only cancel the entire service with Microsoft, but canceling 
the service would take 30 to 60 days. Additionaly the act of 
canceling, disconnects the DSL service provided by Qwest. Restoring 
the DSL service would then take anywhere from i0 days to 6 months, 
depending on demand in my neighborhood.
    It is a far cry from equal access, when you consider that if my 
ISP were anyone other than Microsoft, changing ISP is as sidle as 
calling either Qwest or the new ISP and asking for a switch, much 
like the process of changing long distance companies.
    Continuing this analogy, their policy of handling Microsoft is 
customers, would be like saying that to change long distance 
carriers, I must wait 2 months, have all of my phone service 
diconnected, and then wait I0 days to 6 months for a reconnect.
    What do you think the company should do to resolve your 
complaint? Qwest should switch my ISP service to any provider I 
choose, without delay, handling the requestr withe same even-
handedness that is required for customers long-distance I carrier 
choice.
    From the Seattle Times: A growing number of consumers and 
Internet service providers co, lain that MSN Microsoft's Web 
company--is throwing up roadblocks for former Qwest high-speed 
Internet customers who want to quit MSN.
    ``It makes me feel like they're saying `We're going to teach you 
a lesson' for wanting to quit them,'' said Larry Lomax of Des 
Moines, a former Qwest digital-subscriber-line (DSL) customer who 
switched to MSN and then decided he wanted to move to another 
provider.
    Lomax said that MSN continually told him that he had been 
disconnected from its service, while Qwest insisted that according 
to its records, he still had a live DSL connection with MSN. The 
impasse lasted for about two months and ended earlier this month, 
when Lomax became so frustrated that he decided to give up on DSL 
altogether. When Qwest and MSN announced they were teaming up last 
spring, the two giants promoted their new alliance as a boon to 
500,000 Internet subscribers in 14 states, mostly in the West, who 
would benefit from Qwest technology and MSN's content.
    Roughly two out of five of those subscribers were DSL customers 
who had chosen Qwest as their Internet service provider; the rest 
were customers who used dial-up modems. Under the partnership 
arrangement, all former Qwest customers would automatically become 
MSN customers unless they opted out. Washington state DSL customers 
say the deadline to switch has shifted from a date last month to 
Jan. 21.
    Some critics maintain that MSN is engaging in monopolistic 
practices that deserve attention, such as forcing customers who want 
to switch away from MSN to go without DSL service and charging them 
more if they try to switch. They further contend that Qwest, which 
originally promised to treat all DSL providers equally to help 
spread the technology, now is conspiring with MSN to hoard such 
prized customers. Qwest insists it is not playing favorites.
    MSN likewise denies the allegations, but a spokeswoman 
acknowledged it recently had learned of problems relating to 
cancellation orders with DSL customers. She added that MSN was 
working to correct them. It is difficult to gauge the scope of the 
problem because neither Qwest nor MSN will disclose how many DSL 
customers have chosen to switch to another provider rather than 
accept MSN.
    The companies also won't say how many customers quit MSN after 
initially agreeing to the transfer. Even more difficult to figure 
out is the number of consumers who have given up trying to quit MSN 
because they found the obstacles too daunting.
    ``Everyone's just up in arms over this thing,'' said Darwin 
Hill, owner of Worldlink, a Shoreline-based Internet service 
provider who contends that MSN's conduct has cost him customers. 
``Consumers are amazed by how they can't get anything done,'' he 
said. Hill is among the providers and consumers in Washington and 
other states who are particularly peeved at what they claim are 
routine waits of two weeks--during which no DSL service is 
available--to change Internet service providers (ISPs) .
    In addition, they are concerned about reconnection charges of 
$69 that will rise to $99 on Jan. 5.
    By contrast, before MSN's arrival, Qwest charged DSL customers 
$30 to change providers. Also, the switch routinely got done 
overnight, or with minimal service interruption, according to 
several independent providers.
    Charles Porter, a Seattle DSL user who thought better of his 
decision to accept MSN, filed a complaint with the state attorney 
general. He stated that when he tried to change service providers, 
both MSN and Qwest said switching could take from i0 days to six 
months. ``It is a far cry from equal access, when you consider that 
if my ISP were anyone other than Microsoft, changing ISPs is as 
sidle as . . .  changing long-distance companies,'' he wrote in his 
complaint. In an interview, Porter said, ``Microsoft is up to their 
old games,'' referring to monopolistic practices.
    Jared Reimer, an executive with The River, a Tucson-based 
provider that offers DSL service in Arizona and Western Washington, 
alleged that the system is ``rigged up so that it's almost 
impossible for the customer to switch.''
    He said that under the new arrangement, Qwest has made MSN the 
``customer of record'' on the DSL portion of a customer's phone 
line, meaning the consumer no longer has the ability to switch 
providers at will. ``They must get (MSN's) permission to do it,'' he 
said. Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager, acknowledged that under 
the deal with Qwest, MSN owns ``the interaction with the (DSL) 
customer.'' She said the company ``recently learned about issues on 
the order-cancellation process, primarily with DSL (customers). DSL 
is certainly more complicated for every provider, not just MSN.''
    She said that the majority of DSL customers wishing to cancel 
MSN were not having problems and that MSN and Qwest were working 
``to improve customer experience.'' Meantime, Gary Gardner, 
executive director with the Washington State Association of Internet 
Service Providers, a trade group for the state's independent 
providers, is asking the state Attorney General's Office to get 
involved.
    A spokesman for the office said it was aware of the complaints 
and was monitoring the situation. Peter Lewis can be reached at 206-
464-2217 or [email protected]. Copyright (C) 2002 The Seattle 
Times Company Qwest-to-MSN switch frustrates many Internet customers 
find it difficult to get problems resolved Friday, November 23, 2001
    By JANE HADLEY
    SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER CONSUMER AFFAIRS REPORTER
    The process of switching hundreds of thousands of Qwest Internet 
customers to Microsoft's MSN Internet service is experiencing some 
glitches, both companies admit. Qwest and Microsoft Corp. in April 
announced a five-year partnership under 


[[Page 25481]]


which Qwest will close down 
its Internet provider service and encourage its 500,000 customers to 
move to MSN. Qwest will be the DSL provider for MSN customers.
    The two companies are encouraging customers to switch before 
Nov. 30, and Qwest says its Internet provider service will close 
down early next year. Customers have the option of switching to an 
Internet provider other than MSN, but Qwest, under its agreement, 
has pledged to promote MSN above other providers.
    But in a confusing twist, Qwest is also quietly offering 
customers the option of staying with Qwest under a program called 
StarterPak, which is aimed at small businesses, but is similar in 
most respects to what it had been offering to its residential 
customers.
    The MSN transition problem has been worst for customers who had 
been using Qwest's DSL service, which provides fast connections to 
the Internet, said Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager. Liz Conner, a 
Federal Way resident, said she waited 11 weeks to get DSL equipment 
that she was promised she would get within two weeks. ``I've done 
everything I can think of and contacted everyone I can find,'' 
Conner said. ``I tried calling Microsoft, even. They can't even tell 
me what department to contact or who to contact. So the bottom line 
is that the customer is stymied; they're left holding the bag with 
nowhere to go to get this problem resolved. The folks at MSN aren't 
solving it, and they're blaming Qwest. Qwest isn't solving it. 
They're blaming MSN. ``
    How common is this problem? Unfortunately, the state Utilities 
and Transportation Commission does not keep track of the number of 
consumers who complain to them about Qwest/MSN problems.
    Instead, the commission keeps track of a far smaller number: 
customers who don't get satisfaction after they call a special Qwest 
number that the commission gives to people filing complaints.
    That amounts to about five people in the past two months, 
commission spokesman Tim Sweeney said. The Attorney General's Office 
has received a similar number of complaints about the Qwest/MSN 
transition in the last few weeks, spokesman Chris Jarvis said. But 
Conner said one Qwest customer service representative told her that 
Qwest's and MSN's computers weren't speaking to one another, and 
that the mess was affecting about 20,000 Qwest DSL customers.
    Lisa Gurry, an MSN product manager, said the two companies are 
working on synchronizing their databases. ``Both MSN and Qwest are 
two big companies,'' Qwest spokesman Michael Dunne said. ``Making 
this partnership work, we're experiencing some difficulties in 
migrating customers from Qwest.net to MSN.''
    But he added, ``We're working tirelessly with MSN'' to solve the 
problems. Grace Dapar, another MSN spokeswoman, said MSN has set up 
a task force specifically to deal with delays in setting up 
accounts.
    Delay is only one complaint. Others include confusion and 
difficulty making the switch, difficulty reaching company 
representatives who are knowledgeable and follow through on their 
promises, and disappointment with services MSN is providing.
    Conner, who said she's spent countless hours on the telephone, 
said Qwest representatives repeatedly made promises that weren't 
kept and she believed she was being lied to. ``My impression is the 
folks at Qwest are so desperate to tell you something, and the 
people above aren't telling them anything.''
    Aleta Hoyt, a Seattle real estate agent who has Qwest DSL and 
Internet service, says she has found the process of 
``transitioning,'' as Qwest and MSN call it, to be confusing and 
difficult. Hoyt received a letter in the mail telling her she needed 
to transition and could qualify for a prize if she did so before 
next Friday.
    Hoyt believed she had no choice but to switch to MSN. She typed 
her name into the online form to ``transition,'' but the form told 
her she was ``not authorized'' to transition. She called Qwest and 
was told to reset her password and try again. Same result. She was 
then given a phone number to call MSN's technical support. When she 
called there, she was told that wasn't technical support and to call 
a different number. She called the second number, where she was told 
to call the first number she had called. She experienced problems 
when the form asked for her ``billing phone number'' yet required 
three extra digits added to the phone number. Also, she lost her 
Internet access totally when she followed the Qwest representative's 
suggestion to reset her password. A different Qwest tech-support 
person straightened that out.
    But now Hoyt was confused because several of the Qwest 
representatives told her she could stay with Qwest after all, using 
the $21.95-a-month StarterPak program. She's now mulling her 
options.
    Meanwhile, in online forums, some customers are complaining that 
MSN emphasizes Hotmail, its Web-based e-mail service, which makes it 
impossible to subscribe to traditional Usenet news groups and means 
that e-mail is stored on MSN servers instead of downloaded to the 
user's computer.
    But MSN's Gurry notes that Web-based e-mail provides the 
advantage of being accessible from any computer anywhere in the 
world. Also, MSN has its own news groups, which are ``richer'' than 
the Usenet news groups, she said. Gurry initially agreed that MSN 
was not supporting traditional Post Office Protocol e-mail accounts, 
but later corrected that and said that although MSN is pushing the 
Web-based e-mail, users can have access to the traditional POP type 
of e-mail, in which messages are downloaded to the user's computer.
    One customer complained, however, that Microsoft appeared to be 
doing no spam filtering on its POP accounts. ``The services we offer 
today are based on what the majority of customers have told us they 
do want,'' Gurry said. ``Inevitably, we'll hear feedback requesting 
additional features and functionality. We continue to listen to that 
feedback and evaluate the prospects of including those features in 
future MSN releases,'' she said.
    P-I reporter Jane Hadley can be reached at 206-448-8362 or 
[email protected]



MTC-00011640

From: Ralph Whiteside
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It time for the government to settle the Microsoft case and get 
on to important issues. Such as, Enron and professional baseball 
restraint of trade.



MTC-00011641

From: Rhoda Elenbaas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: I have watched over the past several 
years while massive amounts of time and money have been spent on 
this issue. The proposed settlement pending before the court is just 
and equitable. It contains a component that will greatly benefit 
disadvantaged portions of the community and schools. Some might 
argue that there is hidden motivation and benefit to Microsoft. I 
would argue that the benefit to the students, families and 
communities is much greater and should be the primary area of 
concern because if it does not come from this source--it will not 
happen in the forseeable future.
    Let's be done with this issue once and for all. I am sick of 
hearing and reading about it and believe that to continue this 
matter for another moment is a gross waste of time, energy and 
dollars. There is a real & great evil at work in our society that is 
more worthy of our focus. Microsoft has taken it's lashes. Let's 
move on. A concerned taxpayer and voting American.
    Rhoda Elenbaas



MTC-00011642

From: Metters, Bobbie J
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  3:01pm
Subject: My views
    I think Microsoft is more than fair and I don't think Bill Gates 
should be told by we the people or the Government how to run a 
company.Albeit It was before my time when Standard Oil Co. was 
forced to break up due to the same type of situation. . . . ok that 
was oil this is disc but you get the idea. . . . I think Nintendo 
has far higher prices for it's stuff and then when you finally get 
one play-station they come up with a new one with higher prices yet 
on their cartridges and no-one says a thing about that . . . and 
that's just my view. . . . Bobbie Metters



MTC-00011643

From: Paul Goethe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As a small business owner I wish to state that the proposed 
settlement is more than fair to small business owners such as our 
company. Thirty years ago Microsoft developed an operating system 
that enabled our business to flourish. Our business being Electrical 
design Software. In the intervening years we have kept up with all 
up-grades for 


[[Page 25482]]


what I call Very Low charges while all along receiving 
1st class back-up and support from Microsoft personnel. To people 
like us Microsoft has been a God-Send. We feel that the proposed 
settlement is extremely harsh but we recommend it stands as is.
    Best Regards:
    Paul K. Goethe President
    Optimized Program Inc.
    Cleveland , Ohio 44136



MTC-00011644

From: Carl J. Clement
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I approve of the Microsoft settlement. The entire matter was 
caused by about 4 potential (failed)competitors who tried to use the 
Federal government to do their competing!
    Carl J. Clement



MTC-00011645

From: Giacomo Zardetto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Once and for all, SETTLE the Microsoft Lawsuit. The World 
Economy is at constant WAR. Life in itself is a war of economics. 
WHY DO YOU WANT TO DEFEAT ONE OF YOUR OWN? ``Divide and conquer'', 
was the motto, of an old communist; STALIN Please settle this once 
and for all.
    Your country and millions of beneficiaries of today's technology 
will thank you for it.
    Sincerely,
    GIACOMO ZARDETTO
    [email protected]



MTC-00011646

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While Microsoft probably overplayed its hand enough to get its 
would be competitors upset to the point of initiating this action, 
they have certainly done more good for the American consumer than 
harm. They, by innovation and standardization, have probably done 
immeasurable good in improving the productivity of our entire work 
force. I would have preferred that the Department of Justice had not 
gotten involved in the first place; however, they have and it sounds 
like the settlement worked out is fair. With respect to the 9 hold-
out states that want even more, I am not sure what their game is. Do 
they want money as an alternative source of revenue in lieu of 
raising taxes because they think they can get away with it? Do they 
want glory and recognition? Do they want to punish Microsoft because 
they are jealous? Or do they really believe they and the consumers 
they represent have really been dealt an injustice? It certainly 
makes no sense to me.
    Thanks for your time and consideration.
    John Gridley



MTC-00011647

From: Gordon R. Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Having owned and used multiple computers and many different 
software programs and their upgrades during the last thirty years, I 
can state from experience that the alternative to constant 
frustration from software ``clichis''--is to use an integrated set 
of software products from a financially strong company which can be 
depended on to stay in business and continually upgrade its 
products. I look to Microsoft as being that company. I have always 
felt that their price of software was relatively insignificant and 
one of the greatest bargains in history in terms of what it can 
accomplish. The future of the nation is considerably dependent on 
having a strong, innovative, software company such as Microsoft with 
the ability to guarantee continued continuity and upgrading of an 
overall package of software products for personal computers. The 
courts should uphold the settlement agreements presently acceptable 
to the United States Department of Justice and all states should 
join in the acceptance for the good of the nation and computer 
users.
    Gordon R. Martin
    Gleneden Beach, Oregon



MTC-00011648

From: Kevin DeSchene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:59pm
Subject: Class Action Suite
    Hello, The proposed remedy for the class action suites are 
unacceptable (i.e some odd billions of dollars going to poor 
schools). Was this an attempt to reward MS for their shoddy business 
ethics or what? The customer base is the plaintiff here, not the 
schools. And since when has the accused been allowed to negotiate 
their punishment. Should we start asking murderers what their 
punishment should be, (not to be confused with plea bargains). U.S. 
antitrust law implies that the violator must be deprived of it's 
ill-gotten gains, as well as be fully sheared in terms of 
perpetrating the bad deed again in the future.
    A proper set of solution:
    1. Require MS to accurately publish the APIs Windows, IE, and 
Office programs,,, etc. . ., and offer same as storable (not 
automated one-time only) downloads for the public to view and study;
    2. Prohibit Microsoft from entering any web services area, 
including .NET entirely, for 10 years. Since MS is leveraging its 
existing wares as a jump off to .MAKE-US-RENT-SOFTWARE-FOREVER 
(a.k.a. .NET), they must be denied this further attempt to profit 
from the initial ill-gotten gain;
    3. No, don't break up Microsoft, but simply require that MS 
Office applications and all associated source code be declared 
freeware. This would effectively deny MS the fruits of its initial 
ill-gotten gains.
    4. Fine the firm (MS) an amount equal to the dividends it hasn't 
paid shareholders as yet; this will prevent MS from using its cash 
reserves to buy its way around the above restrictions by simply 
inventing a new sandbox and forcing us all to play in it all over 
again (this is what they are already trying to do with .NET of 
course).
    5. Their software should be supported and their licensing 
controlled more: i.e if they quit supporting ANY software, then that 
said software should become public domain. This would control 
MicroSoft from forcing upgrades. Microsoft should be required to re-
organize their licensing program to allow for corporations/
individuals to skip upgrades without punishment.
    6. Exclusionary OEM agreements should be considered violation of 
law and punished accordingly. OEM pricing should be published for 
public viewing.
    7. Political monetary influence should be monitored more 
closely. Even though it can't be proven, MS has influenced the 
political regimes of this county (I'm embarrassed by what our 
political system has become), and policed properly.
    8. Program integration should be controlled more readily. 
Customers should be given the option to buy Windows without any 
additional programs installed. Windows ONLY, no IE, no Media Player, 
no Notepad, no nothing, just the OS and any OS related utilities 
(i.e Defrag, Scandisk, etc. . .)
    9. All court/litigation costs should be paid by MicroSoft for 
ALL litigation imposed in the past 7 years.
    10. Additionally, Microsoft should be given a proposed 
punishment imposed in the case of further future violations of the 
law.
    As Well,
    A. Litigation for technology needs to be revamped in this 
country. Our laws don't move at the speed of technology. By the time 
the court hearings are completed, the issues are irrelevant.
    B. Appeals need to be limited more. There is no other reason for 
the number of appeals MicroSoft litigation has produced. These 
appeals just costs the Taxpayers more in taxes.
    Thank You!
    Kevin DeSchene



MTC-00011649

From: Ann Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Should be Settled
    I personally use Microsoft products and think they have givenso 
much to people that the case should be settled.
    Sincerely,
    Anmn Jackson



MTC-00011650

From: Tomal, Bob
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The legal INDUSTRY is out of control. Their greed and never 
ending pursuit for prolonging the billing for outrageous hourly and 
contingency fees is unconscionable. Now they are again on the quest 
to extort and redistribute cash into their already bloated bank 
accounts. The sick thing with that sleazy mob is that they are now 
stealing from the American children who would benefit from this 
settlement. I know that you're all in the same fraternity and will 
just consider this a crank e-mail, but then again, you might have 
decency to agree that your industry has crossed over the line.
    CC:'MSFIN(a)Microsoft.com'



[[Page 25483]]





MTC-00011651

From: Victor Pearson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The more than $1 billion in funding, software, services and 
training, etc. should be accepted or the whole thing should be 
dropped and not brought up any more. Microsoft has been more than 
fair during this whole process and is still trying to create new and 
innovated products even when the competition is trying to win via 
the court of law and not with great software products. If the 
software competition to Microsoft would put as much effort into 
their software as they do into trying to bring Microsoft down in a 
court of law, maybe they would have software that consumers want 
more than they would want software from Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Victor E. Pearson



MTC-00011652

From: hd74amf2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the Microsoft settlement.
    It is time to get this over, and to move on. I disagree that 
Microsoft should have ever been sued. Look at the damage that 
resulted in their stock price, which effected millions of people. It 
is a sad day when competitors of Microsoft waste their time getting 
the government to file lawsuits, instead of investing in research to 
compete. The government should have never brought the suit. Anyone 
that understands technology would know that just because Explorer is 
on the desktop, doesn't mean that you can't load Netscape.
    I don't like or use Explorer, but I do not believe in government 
interference with private industry. Nothing will be gained by this 
lawsuit. The consumer will end up paying more. It is a very alarming 
trend in government.
    I do not like most Microsoft products, but until some one comes 
up with something better, they are here to stay. The emphasis should 
be getting on with business, and competing with the rest of the 
world. If Microsoft will agree to the settlement, get it over. I do 
not think they should settle, they should fight it and win, but if 
they want to settle, it is time to move on.
    Richard



MTC-00011653

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:06pm
Subject: (no subject)
    i think it is time to settle the microsoft case now. there are 
only nine(9) states do not agree. we cant accept the case because of 
9 states. we should not. Judges should have to think more. they 
claims it hurts consumers because microsoft is monoply . BALONEY. WE 
as the consumers know for sure that we did not feel any harm of it. 
STOP CRYING LIKE BABIES. THAT IS WHAT I FEEL.
    THANK YOU.
    Larry Schoenberg



MTC-00011654

From: Flora Donivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find it interesting that our state so small in population and 
political clout could be a leader in withdrawing from the Microsoft 
litigation. New Mexico acknowledged some time ago that a continuance 
of said litigation was not helpful to the people of New Mexico 
considering the cost to taxpayers as well as the cost to the country 
as a whole.
    Let us put all this behind us Massachusetts and Utah and others. 
Perhaps the present recession could be helped to an end by a more 
friendly business environment.
    Flora L. Donivan
    A proud New Mexican



MTC-00011655

From: Anne Proffitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this suit! Microsoft has done more than they 
should have had to in order to satisfy the DOJ, the court and the 
competitors. The other nine states also need to look at the larger 
picture and co-operate by joining the settlement agreement.
    Anne Proffitt
    1900 Shore Avenue
    Freeland, WA 98249
    [email protected]



MTC-00011656

From: Prem Dhawan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    We should settle microsoft lawsuit and move on. It serves no 
purpose to drag it on.
    Best Regards,
    PremDhawan
    @WWFinancialResolutions.com
    Advisor to Banks & Businesses
    Bankruptcy Trustee
    Tele: (707) 747-6000
    You are invited to visit our website at:
    http://www.wwfinancialresolutions.com>



MTC-00011657

From: Gilbert Claborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please allow the settlement of the Microsoft case so that the 
company can get on with its development and production of products 
at reasonable costs, without inflated costs arising from protracted 
litigation, and so that my tax money can stop being spent 
frivolously and without end of needless extensions of the DOJ 
litigation.
    Gilbert L. Claborn
    268 Stonebridge Road
    Birmingham, AL 35210
    (205) 956-1413



MTC-00011658

From: brian mcconnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the proposed case against Microsoft, the proposed settlement 
appears to be fair and just, and is definitely in the best interest 
of the consuming public, and thewrefore should be allowed to 
proceed.
    I want the case closed.
    Thanks so much,
    Bryan McConnell
    1405 Autumn Chase Sq.
    Bedford, TX 76022



MTC-00011659

From: W R Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement of the suit.
    W.R. Hutchison



MTC-00011660

From: BETTY BOUSHEE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please settle the Microsoft case as soon as possible under the 
term reached with Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This case 
has gone on far too long and should never have gone as far as it did 
just because some companies wanted to punish Microsoft1s success in 
stead of competing.
    Betty Boushee



MTC-00011661

From: MORRIS KAY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:12pm
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft Action
    Litigation is time and money cosuming. . . . In my opinion, the 
settlement proposal by Microsoft, which some states accepted, and 
others did not, is fair and equitable. Let's get this problem behind 
us.
    Morris Kay



MTC-00011662

From: Eric Wanono
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    Firstly, I am sorry about my English, but I am French (nobody is 
perfect).
    I am very surprised by this judgement and all aspects of them. 
It seems to be much more a concurrence driving process than a legal 
judgement. I think that it will be great for Microsoft to go in 
France, because freedom is more really here than in USA. Nobody can 
tell you that you don't be better ore more efficient than another 
company. I'm not sure that in case of another company the impact 
would be the same. My personal vision of this case is that it seems 
to be a ``hunting sorcery''. I not happy to don't have in France 
company like Microsoft but I think that U.S. government won't be 
happy to have this attitude when this judgement will be view by an 
``history'' point of view. And I am not sure that other company who 
will take advantage of this situation are more ``customer oriented'' 
than Microsoft.
    Eric Wanono
    France


[[Page 25484]]




MTC-00011663

From: B(038)B Cody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    We are of the opinion that enough has been done to Microsoft re: 
its problems with the Department of Justice. There has been a fair 
settlement upon which dedicated men have agreed after a most lengthy 
process. Surely now is the time for the remaining states to agree to 
come together and begin to serve the public in its wishes for an end 
to this matter. Further litigation will only serve to disrupt 
consumer confidence and our economy, and cost many more thousands 
and thousands of dollars (most likely in the millions, actually). 
Kindly put a stop to this and ask the remaining entities to agree to 
that which has gone before. Thank you.
    Barbara Cody



MTC-00011664

From: m cochran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:13pm
Subject: Viewpoint
    Are these other nine (9) states hungry for money? May be these 
other nine (9) should remove their Microsoft software programs from 
state's computers and make there own system. Then give back to 
Microsoft their software and promise never to use Microsoft's 
software again or Microsoft can take each one of those states to 
court for using Microsoft's software.
    Mel. Cochran
    Riverside,CA



MTC-00011665

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the country and the economy will be better off with the 
current settlement than to drag it through further litigation. It 
does appear Microsoft was guilty of some antitrust violations but it 
also appears the current settlement addresses that adequately. I 
feel we must also recall the good the innovations of Microsoft have 
done for the country as a whole as well as the good it has done for 
the economy of each state. For the record: Iam neither a Microsoft 
employee nor a stockholder.
    Richard LaFramboise
    Yakima, Washington



MTC-00011666

From: John Wilder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:14pm
Subject: Comments
    The government should get out of the watch dog business when 
there is no apparent reason to bother Microsoft. I see no difference 
between what the government is doing to Microsoft and what Microsoft 
is doing to the public. All businesses have to protect themselves 
from crooks and thieves but the Government cannot sit by and let 
well enough alone. You pick on Microsoft and let Enron slide until 
the public is hurt. Give it up and let Microsoft get on with 
business.
    John Wilder



MTC-00011667

From: JLynch3D
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:13pm
Subject: comment on MS
    I'd like to comment on the Microsoft antitrust situation and 
lawsuit. I am not an employee of MS or have any dealings with them 
in business. In my opinon, the problems that MS had have been 
brought to light, and corrections have already been made. The most 
noteable of them being public awareness. Why do I think this is the 
most important correction agaisnt MS? For two reasons:
    1. A company's reputation is the most important assett they own. 
Obviously, MS has take nquite a blow here. This can be evidenced by 
the slwodown in their business and the rise to power of newer power 
players in the technology industry. Foremost of these are AOL/Time 
Warner, which owns the internet business lock, stock, and barrell. 
Linux is another product that has come to power as an OS. And as 
well as the handheld Palm products, and the cell phones which have 
gone to other OS's. if anything, in these competitive technology 
markets, MS may end up finding themselves squeezed into an area of 
selling products into the slowing and mature PC market, and being 
out run by newer companies in new innovative areas of technology.
    2. Awareness is important becasue consumers and business owners 
need to constantly be aware that they are responsible for the 
decisons and choices they make. . . and that there are choices. This 
strikes at the heart of what America is--responsibility for our 
actions, and for freedom. People who do not like MS can buy an Apple 
OS computer, or a Linux OS computer, or other alternatives like a Be 
based OS and computer.
    Personallty, I use an MS based computer. I do not think it is 
the best OS or browser in the world and it has alot of faults. But 
so do all technology products in these complex areas. However, I am 
thankful that MS is a compan ythat has unified the computer industry 
by giving it a platform that people can communicate with, and this 
may be the one single factor that has lead to al lthe innovation and 
productivity of this country in the last ten years.
    In summary, I do not think MS should be penalized further. It is 
time to move on--the technology world is not where it was five years 
ago. It's also time to be thankful and hopeful that MS tremains a 
vital and strong part of American industry. Without it I belive our 
entire economy would suffer. And God help us if another foreign 
company rises to poewer and supplants MS.
    Regard,
    Jim Lynch



MTC-00011668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a retired citizen, using MS Windows 98, I would like to say I 
wish our Justice Department would stop any further action against 
Microsoft. I am very pleased with the company and in no way feel 
injured by Microsoft. On the contrary I feel they have helped me by 
making their products available. I have many friends who feel the 
same way and and it is apparent to me that most of the objections to 
Microsoft are from their competitors rathar than their customers. 
Success in the market place should be encouraged by our government, 
not hindered. When will our government officials stop petty projects 
and concentrate on the issues of real importance to the nations 
citizens? If Mr. Gates had contributed huge sums to our political 
parties and cadidates, would the situation be the same? If Microsoft 
were located in Mass or Utah would their politician's opposition to 
Microsoft be as strong? I think not. I see this as a political game 
and object strenuously.
    Robert T. Fellows
    Tucson AZ



MTC-00011669

From: Dick Boulanger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Our household is unanimous in the opinion that the Microsoft 
settlement is sufficient and the case should be concluded ASAP. Our 
economy has sustained enough damage. It is high time to start 
healing the wounds and let Microsoft and competitor's management get 
back to growing the industry instead of trying to wreck it with 
Justice Department help. The nine desenting states should get in 
line with the majority for the good of the country.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Richard J. and Mary Ann Boulanger
    8117 N 12th St.
    Tacoma, WA 98406



MTC-00011670

From: Alex Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I am a Stanford MBA who has been working in Silicon Valley for 
several years, some of those in the high tech industry. It is my 
view that Microsoft has repeatedly out-muscled its competition, 
wielding its operating system as a big stick, and falling on the 
wrong side of this nation's anti-trust laws.
    The Proposed Final Judgment lets Microsoft off too easy and 
hardly constitutes a deterrent to future anti-trust violators. 
Furthermore, it doesn't eliminate the critical components that have 
enabled them to engage in this illegal behavior.
    I strongly urge you to impose heavier penalties on Microsoft 
that will restore competition and force them to play by the rules 
like everyone else.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Brubaker
    San Jose, CA



MTC-00011671

From: WP/MH
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25485]]


Date: 1/15/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This absurdity has gone on long enough, it is time to settle and 
stop wasting the public's money, time and energy--the latter items 
would be better spent on real `energy' and accountancy crooks, who 
are screwing the consumer and their own employees.
    PE



MTC-00011672

From: Gerald Gaumer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:19pm
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-00011673

From: Ken Horowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement proposed by the Department of Justice 
is far too lenient--it is a mere slap on the wrist to Microsoft, a 
confirmed monopolist. The settlement as proposed SHOULD NOT BE 
ACCEPTED. Instead, the federal government should push ahead along 
the lines of the other states who have not caved in the Microsoft. 
The DoJ settlement will accomplish nothing, and will leave Microsoft 
free to continue its monopolistic ways. Please push for a tougher 
settlement that will more effectively restrict Microsoft.
    Ken Horowitz
    [email protected]
    203-637-4910
    3 Cherry Lane, Old Greenwich, CT 06870



MTC-00011674

From: DONALD J. RESTLY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    See attached file in support of the settlement.

9436 Wildwood Drive
Chardon, Ohio 44024
January l5,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to give my support for the settlement 
negotiated between Microsoft and the Justice Department last year. I 
feel this is a good agreement for both sides and gives everyone the 
opportunity to move forward.
    The settlement is comprehensive and mandates significant 
concessions from Microsoft in order to remain in compliance. 
Microsoft has agreed to grant computer broad new rights to configure 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows. And Microsoft must 
not retaliate against any computer maker who ships software that 
competes with anything in the Windows operating system. Microsoft 
must also subject themselves to monitoring by a Technical Committee 
to assure compliance with the settlement.
    At a time of difficult circumstances for our economy, this 
agreement could provide a small boost. The settlement will also give 
each side the chance to focus on other issues. For Microsoft, that 
means developing new software and for the government it means 
fighting the current recession.
    Sincerely,
    Donald J. Restly



MTC-00011675

From: dave cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I want the US Justice Dept to stop persecuting MSFT for moving 
America ahead. If you want to end this recession to end drop this 
lawsuit and settle with MSFT today. This suit is hurting our 
economy.



MTC-00011676

From: Francie Hanks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I BELIEVE THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR AND THE LITIGATION HAS GONE ON 
WAY TOO LONG. I STRONGLY URGE THE NINE STATES WHO HAVEN'T JOINED IN 
THE SETTLEMENT TO DO SO. IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON!



MTC-00011677

From: dwwrayti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Let's settle this now!!! Dragging this out hinders any recovery 
effort in the tech area. It's like killing the goose that laid the 
golden egg!!
    Don Wray
    Carpe Diem!!!



MTC-00011678

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I understand you are seeking public comment on the proposed 
antitrust settlement with the 9 states and Microsoft, and that the 
District Court will consider these comments when it determines 
whether the settlement is indeed in the public interest. I believe 
the settlement is very much in the public interest and should be 
finalized immediately.
    Over a year and a half ago, on May 7, 2000, I wrote my 
representative and two senators to express my concern about the 
Justice Department's handling of the Microsoft matter. At that time 
the DOJ was presenting its case to Judge Jackson, who appeared to be 
inclined to break up Microsoft. I recalled how in the 1970s and 80s 
all attention was on the successes of Japan; U.S. companies 
seemingly could do nothing right. One company that changed all that 
was Microsoft, which became a leader of the U.S. technology surge. 
We all benefited from this leadership. On the way home from our good 
paying jobs we could stop off at a Starbucks and have an expensive 
cup of coffee. Why not? We Americans were doing well in the 90s; 
unemployment was at all time lows. Much of the litigation initiated 
by the Justice Department and opportunists like Barksdale was 
misdirected. Surely Microsoft did wrong, but the current proposed 
settlement addresses that. The current holdouts to the settlement 
have an agenda of their own, which is not in the best interest of 
America. To achieve their ends, they would have us become a society 
that eats its young! This case against Microsoft has gone on too 
long. Let's get back to work.
    Very truly yours,
    F. Joseph McCrosson



MTC-00011679

From: Earl Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If the government would pay more attention to companies like 
Enron and less on Microsoft, the country would be much healthier. 
The Microsoft cow has been milked long enough.
    Sincerely,
    Earl Johnston



MTC-00011680

From: Jack Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I urge the respective state to accept the current settlement 
agreement. It is fair and equitable for all parties concerned.



MTC-00011681

From: ED SAVCHENKO
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    US Justice Dept.
    I believe that the Microsoft case should be settled now. It 
seems that the only ones who win in a situation like this is the 
attorney's.


[[Page 25486]]


    Ed Savchenko



MTC-00011682

From: John Dean
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is John Holmes Dean III and I am a 25 year old computer 
engineer. I have been programming since I was ten on a wide variety 
of computers; Apple IIe, Commodore Amiga, Macintoshes and IBM-PCs. 
The purpose of this letter is to highlight the technical 
inefficiencies of early Microsoft software and come to the 
conclusion that given a level playing field, no informed consumer 
would pick Microsoft's products based on quality. I will then talk 
about the time that Microsoft took over one hundred dollars from me 
in exchange for nothing in a move that stifled competition in a 
education setting (similar to the settlement Microsoft has currently 
proposed).
    Between the years of 1987 and 1996, I was an active user and 
programmer of Commodore Amigas. The Amiga, which never achieved more 
than a low single-digit market share, occupies an interesting niche 
in computer history. Released in 1985 (one year after the ubiquitous 
Macintosh) to great fanfare, the Amiga was the first true 
``multimedia'' computer. At a time when PCs had EGA (16 colors) and 
Macintoshes were black & white, the Amiga was capable of 4096 colors 
on screen. The Amiga had 4 channel 8-bit digital stereo sound when 
the PC had internal speakers and the Macintosh had 1 channel. The 
Commodore Amiga shipped with Workbench 1.0 which was a pre-emptive 
multitasking, graphical user interface operating system.
    I spent my teenage years engrossed with my Amiga. Because 
Workbench could do pre-emptive multitasking (a form of running 
multiple programs where the operating system gives and takes 
processor time away from the individual programs), I would commonly 
use my computer to download files over my modem, listen to digital 
music files and play games at the same time. During this time, 
Microsoft's flagship operating system was Windows 3.X. Windows 3.X 
used a form of multitasking called cooperative multitasking. Each 
program had the responsibility to relinquish control of the 
processor to the next program. Cooperative multitasking is the same 
form of multitasking used on Macintoshes before Mac OS X and is 
considered an inferior method. It was hard to impossible to get 
multiple program to run correctly at the same time on early version 
of windows. When it was possible, the systems requirements were far 
greater. Windows 95 had a limited form of pre-emptive multitasking 
that was a mix between pre-emptive and cooperative. Windows uses a 
single letter for drive names. Windows uses the 8.3 naming 
convention. Windows, to this day, can not really name a file more 
than 8 letters long. ``Long'' file names are stored in the 
``information'' field, which no longer exists, obviously. Windows 
3.X involved 3 steps to make a disk or CD-ROM appear on the screen, 
whereas you only had to stick the disk in on the Amiga/Macintosh to 
have it appear on the screen. Windows 95 and greater still requires 
one step because after you insert a floppy or CD-ROM, you must still 
double-click on `My Computer' to see it.
    `Plug-n-Pray' is a term used to describe Microsoft's `Plug-n-
Play' system. The DOS command line was inferior to Workbench's CLI 
(Workbench had a command line as well) because you couldn't copy and 
paste. there was no history and no command pipe. I can nit-pick 
forever when it comes to Windows, however I will admit that most of 
Window's problems are related to its MS-DOS ancestry and the many, 
many shortcomings of the IBM-PC architecture.
    My other hobby was being a ``troll.'' In internet terminology, a 
troll posts highly controversial statements to illicit as much 
feedback as possible (called ``feeding the troll''). The term troll 
had not yet been invented, but I took great pleasure in posting 
messages to IBM-PC and Microsoft electronic bulletin board systems 
explaining how inferior IBM-PCs and Microsoft Windows really was. I 
would of course receive tens if not hundreds of responses, all of 
which I would respond to-- beginning debates which would last for 
years. I convinced no less than a dozen people of the truth, all of 
which purchased Amigas and some of which are still life-long 
friends.
    To this day, I have not purchased Microsoft software with one 
exception. When I was earning my Electrical Engineering degree at 
the University of Texas, Microsoft signed a deal with the University 
to provide copies of Microsoft software at $5 a CD. The cost to the 
university was 100 million dollars which was added to each student's 
``Computer Fees.'' In that respect, Microsoft stole nearly $25 a 
semester from me for five semesters so that I could have the honor 
of buying Microsoft software for $5 a CD. I hated and despised this 
move by Microsoft because Microsoft knew that this was the only way 
to get a college student like me to pay for their software in the 
first place. Furthermore, because students could get Microsoft 
Visual Studio for $25 (5 CDs) all programming classes began using 
Visual Studio because other compilers such as Borland and Metrowerks 
(where I can currently employed) could no longer compete, even with 
student pricing. I watched the programming classes at UT go from 
Metrowerks only to Visual Studio only in the course of two years.
    Microsoft's settlement will allow Microsoft to achieve the same 
goal in the secondary and high school education market. By giving 
out Microsoft software for free, students will learn and become 
accustomed to Microsoft software and not made aware of the 
alternatives. The proposed Microsoft settlement amounts to nothing 
more than an exclusive advertisement contract between education and 
Microsoft.
    In conclusion, I have personally seen the negative effects of 
Microsoft and IBM-PCs on the computer market. Microsoft took ten 
years to produce a product that (almost) met the capabilities of 
Workbench. Furthermore, Microsoft signed a deal that forced me to 
give them money just to continue my education. I now work for a 
Microsoft competitor where I will do my part to bring the giant 
down. I hope the Department of Justice does theirs.
    John Holmes Dean III



MTC-00011683

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:30pm
Subject: I am against any more of the allegations re: Microsoft
    They have done so much for the entire world, that there is just 
no action other than to be grateful to them for all that they have 
given, the ``Quantum leap for mankind.''
    Cynthia's Designs
    [email protected]



MTC-00011684

From: The Unrein Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to register my support for the settlement terms 
reached by the Department of Justice and Microsoft regarding the 
antitrust dispute on November 2. I feel that ending the litigation 
will be beneficial to the economy, and the federal government made 
the right choice.
    Competition is extremely healthy, and every company needs to do 
business as they see fit. Let's let businesses worry about business, 
and government worry about government issues. There is no need for 
unnecessary regulation. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that 
the market prospers. Agreeing to the terms of the settlement will 
allow the market to do just that.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Please settle 
this matter and allow Microsoft to get back to business as usual.
    Sincerely,
    Annette Unrein
    [email protected]
    435-674-9816
    P. O. Box 1003,
    St. George, UT 84771



MTC-00011685

From: Michael Jaszewski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:31pm
Subject: anti trust lawsuit
    I think what Microsoft did was ok. No one was hurt by it. 
Microsoft single handedly created a industry in our country possible 
the world over. It's no different what I see everyday business's 
doing business.
    Example--I go to taco bell I can't buy coke, only pepsi why is 
that isn't that like a monopoly same with computers I buy a comp 
it's got aol on it not earthlink why is that.



MTC-00011686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Various States Should End Their Lawsuit and begin to let the 
USA economy begin to heal. Consumers have not been hurt by Microsoft 
in fact we have all benefited from low prices of software and 
millions of 401K's have seen only profits because of Microsoft. End 
this immediately and lets stop wasting millions of dollars of our 
taxed income.
    The Stillman Family


[[Page 25487]]



    Pepper Pike, OH



MTC-00011687

From: Tom Gottshalk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    Ladies and Gentlemen of the DOJ,
    The real issue before you is: Now much money do the non-settling 
states want before they settle their anti-trust cases with 
Microsoft? This case is no longer about justice for the PC user, it 
not about the in-justice of a monopoly, it is not about justice for 
the violation of federal law, but it is about nine states attorney 
generals trying to get extra money for their state's budgets. The 
case is about money and political power for politicians not about 
that Microsoft charged too much for the Windows operating system, 
which is ridiculous and has never been proven publicly. For all of 
the state officials if they get money out of Microsoft and it helps 
their political careers so much the better, right.
    Regards,
    Tom Gottshalk
    344 Remington Dr.
    Oviedo, FL 32765



MTC-00011688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's end this harazment once & for all. Close out per the 
latest agreement.
    George Chironis,
    Melville, N.Y. 11747



MTC-00011689

From: JP Altier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned at the way our government has pursued the 
destruction of Microsoft, one of the most productive and beneficial 
companies in our world. In a truly free society, where property 
rights are vigorously protected, there is absolutely no need for 
antitrust laws. Microsoft, in fact, is a prime example of the 
concept that a company can sustain a dominant market position if and 
only if it provides a markedly superior product than any of its 
competitors. The very nature of the fact that Microsoft's products 
are inexpensive and ubiquitous has benefited this world 
immeasurably. Microsoft, therefore, deserves the market position and 
profits it has reaped in exchange for the products it has produced.
    The fact that Microsoft negotiated vigorously with its customers 
and competitors should not be a crime. Microsoft did not deprive 
other companies or consumers of their property rights. Nor did 
Microsoft obtain its will by deception or physical force. Every 
company no matter how large or small should have the right to 
control the destiny of their own products and the right to determine 
the terms and conditions of their business relationships so long as 
their practices never include deception or physical force. For a 
court to have retroactively declared that Microsoft was a monopoly 
some time in the past and that all of its otherwise legal actions 
are now criminal acts goes against our most basic instincts of 
fairness and justice. I strongly urge all parties involved in this 
case to mitigate the harm to Microsoft and our economy that will 
result from the enforcement of our misguided antitrust laws. At the 
very least, I urge the Department of Justice and States Attorney 
Generals to cease litigation in this matter and I urge the presiding 
judge to accept the Stipulation and Revised Final Judgment dated 
November 6th, 2001.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph P. Altier
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011690

From: Larry M. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:38pm
Subject: settle this thing!
    Millions of Americans have had their 401K plans turned totally 
upside down by this drawn out suit. Settle this thing once and for 
all!! The fact of the matter is without Bill Gates inventing Windows 
I couldn't even run a computer nor couple most other Americans that 
use them every day.
    Sincerely
    Larry Johnson



MTC-00011691

From: Mark Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am a supporter of you and President Bush as well as Microsoft 
Corp. I believe the current settlement is the best course of action 
at this time. I don't believe the case should have been pursued in 
the first place, but since the damage has been done can we please 
put it to rest right away.
    I work in the technical industry as a computer programmer. I am 
not employed (nor ever have been) by Microsoft, but I am a firm 
believer that they have done an enourmous amount of good in the 
industry. Their servers and development environment have enabled me 
to be a successful professional. I am grateful to them--and feel 
they have been unjustly ``picked on''. I understand the market is 
extremely competitive and unsavory practices occur. However, these 
unsavory practices are done by all parties--if IBM, Sun or Oracle 
were in Microsoft's shoes--they would have done the same things. 
Hopefully I would be consistent in wanting an end to those cases as 
well--were they brought up.
    Please put the case to rest.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Reed
    Mark M. Reed
    Senior Systems Engineer
    (972) 728-8161
    [email protected]



MTC-00011692

From: Dick H.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    despite the stubbornness of our Atty. General Blumenthal here in 
CT. it is obvious that it is in everyone's best interest that this 
problem be settled and solved and put behind us.please do it!!



MTC-00011693

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:46pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Case against Microsoft
    If Microsoft broke the law punish them but don't reorganize the 
Company or tell them what they can include in their products. 
[email protected]



MTC-00011694

From: Erratadata@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to urge you to finalize and 
settle this matter immediately. Prolonging litigation is not in the 
best interest of the American economy in general and the American 
people specifically. Getting this matter settled NOW will enable 
Microsoft as well as any and all other companies concerned to get on 
with the innovation and product development that has marked the 
progress and growth of this industry for the past two decades.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Prickett
    Mission Viejo, CA



MTC-00011695

From: Sightsaver@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlment
    It is high time for this case to be settled, especially in light 
of the events of 9/11 and the recent Enron debacle. A few publicity-
seeking, self-righteous AGs, supported by Microsoft's competitors 
should not be allowed to derail what is in this country's best 
interest. Tracey Linden DO



MTC-00011696

From: fitz--stewart@ hotmail.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case. It's in the best interests of the 
economy, the technology sector, and the entire country.
    Regards,
    Fitz Stewart
    13544 Tabscott Drive
    Chantilly, VA 20151
    CC:fitz--stewart@ hotmail.com@inetgw



MTC-00011697

From: Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:48pm
Subject: enough!!!
    This settlement should never have even been a question, but now 
that it has been agreed to, the vendetta against Microsoft needs to 
end. It should never have begun. Just because they invented a better 
mousetrap, they have been victimized by our government. I am 
ashambed of this.
    Sincerely,
    Veta Wilson
    HCR 76 Box 66
    Coleman, Texas 76834


[[Page 25488]]




MTC-00011698

From: Don Hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Case Settlement
    Dear Justices,
    As a citizen of the United States I would like to express my 
opinion on the settlement issue of the Microsoft case. I feel the 
offer Microsoft has given is fair and in the best interest of the 
public. I urge all states to accept this settlement and end the case 
as soon as possible.
    Any further suites or punishment of Microsoft is not in the best 
interest of the general public and will only harm and impair 
Microsoft's future ability to continue delivering cutting edge 
software at reasonable prices. Many if not most of the nation rely 
on Microsoft's quality software every day for our livelihood. If you 
try to cripple or punish Microsoft further than has already been 
proposed will be detrimental to the public who rely on their 
software.
    Any further larger fines will simply make the software more 
expensive for the end users and all of the general public will be 
harmed. Please come to a reasonable settlement as quickly as 
possible.
    Thank you.
    Don Hall, DrPH
    Clackamas, Oregon



MTC-00011699

From: LeeAndrews@ aol.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the DOJ's proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states 
and Microsoft. It's time for the litigation to end.
    Lee Andrews
    Richardson, TX



MTC-00011700

From: Stanley Shoeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let's make a settlement and get this behind us. We have more 
important things to settle at this point.
    Stan Shoeman
    2983 Old Bridgeport Way
    San Diego CA 92111



MTC-00011701

From: B.J. Fornadley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, let's not waste any more Government money in this case. 
The proposed settlement is more than fair to all parties.
    Thank you
    B. J. Fornadley



MTC-00011702

From: James Scheil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:53pm
Subject: Class Action Suit
    Those nine states should settle the Microsoft class action as 
proposed. Thanks-Ken & Charline Scheil



MTC-00011703

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i am in favor of upholding the agreement reached between the 
u.s. department of justice and the microsoft corporation. while it 
will not satisfy some folks, particularly those who tend to see 
microsoft as a villain to be severely punished at every opportunity, 
it seems fair to me. microsoft's culpability is proven, but is not, 
i believe, as serious as the dissenting states' attorneys general 
claim. and i see no reason to continue the litigation process. the 
immediate installation of a court-appointed overseer is more 
appropriate--if we are most interested in protecting the consumer. 
detmar h. finke CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011704

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although I am not a lawyer I have followed the antitrust 
litigation in connection with Microsoft and hereby submit my opinion 
to the effect that I agree that settlement is good for the consumer 
and the american economy, which right now needs all the help it can 
get. Grace Larrinua from rolygrace



MTC-00011705

From: CWO Mel Estes USMC(Ret.)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    . Dear USDOJ, I would hope that this settlement is the end of 
the this long ordeal of stifling the economy and the technology 
sector. In my opinion it has been a witch hunt from the beginning. 
MS first established the computer industry years ago, caused the 
tech revolution, and thus has caused a reason for many of their 
competitors to even exist. It is easy to see that they are gaining 
up on them now. Please end this mess. Respectfully, Mel Estes



MTC-00011706

From: Bruce Rocheleau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:56pm
Subject: comments on Microsoft case
    I hope that the case is settled quickly. I think that the 
settlement is fair and provides the basis for rapid technological 
advances in the near and longer term future. I know that people like 
myself who use computer technology as part of their jobs look 
forward to having this uncertainty solved quickly.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Rocheleau



MTC-00011707

From: Brian Satterfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    It all comes down to choices.
    I am a software engineer and have worked with computers for the 
last 6 years. My parents have recently started using computers and 
it has become obvious to me just how strong the Micro$oft hold is on 
the industry.
    It is my belief that the proposed settlement will do nothing to 
curtail Micro$oft's actions, growth or domination of the industry 
and market. I believe that Micro$oft will easily find ways to skirt 
the edges of the settlement and still be in accordance. They will 
integrate their applications more closely with the OS so that they 
are indistiguishable and therefore impossible to separate. I agree 
with Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly ``Five minutes after any 
agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how to 
violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their 
competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's 
what they do.''
    I agree heavily with Matthew Szulik's comments to the Senate and 
feel that the government needs to step in and stop the wave of 
Micro$oft domination. One way would be to ban all use of commercial 
operating systems on government resources. Another would be to 
mandate that for the next so many years they will spend money on 
hardware for every school district in the nation.
    Red Hat software corporation has made the following offer 
(amendments to the DOJ PFJ and I agree with it completely: Microsoft 
redirects the value of their proposed software donation to the 
purchase of additional hardware for the school districts. This would 
increase the number of computers available under the original 
proposal from 200,000 to more than one million, and would increase 
the number of systems per school from approximately 14 to at least 
70. Red Hat, Inc. will provide free of charge the open-source Red 
Hat Linux operating system, office applications and associated 
capabilities to any school system in the United States. Red Hat will 
provide online support for the software through the Red Hat Network.
    Unlike the Microsoft proposal, which has a five-year time limit 
at which point schools would have to pay Microsoft to renew their 
licenses and upgrade the software, the Red Hat proposal has no time 
limit. Red Hat will provide software upgrades through the Red Hat 
Network online distribution channel.
    I hope the DOJ can see that the injustice done to Micro$oft's 
competition and to the Open Source community needs to be dealt with 
in a heavy manner.
    Brian Satterfield
    Engineer--Lockheed Martin --



MTC-00011708

From: hicktest@hotmail. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I urge the court to bless the DOJ/Microsoft settlement. It's 
impossible to please everyone with a settlement (including Microsoft 
biggest competitors). Both sides seem happy with the compromise. I 
think the courts dictating which features are allowed in a product 
will spell disaster for our economy. It's time to forget this mess 
and stop destroying one of America's best corporations.


[[Page 25489]]


    Sincerely,
    Matt Hickey
    Glastonbury, CT



MTC-00011709

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the matter of the Microsoft settlement, I am convinced that 
it is in the best interests of consumers and our economy that it be 
accepted by all parties.
    Much time, effort and money has already been wasted on this 
effort to discredit and humble one of this country's finest 
companies. More people use Microsoft products because they satisfy. 
Get over it.
    Robert Pellet
    Edison, New Jersey



MTC-00011710

From: [email protected]@ inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  12:54pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, let's not waste any more Government money in this case. 
The proposed settlement is more than fair to all parties.
    Sincerely
    Tina Chan



MTC-00011711

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to settle this nonsense the government has imposed 
upon us by constantly attacking Microsoft. Am I the only citizen who 
noticed that with the first court actions against Microsoft, the 
stock market nosedived and has never come back?
    Competition is just that--competition. Instead of whining about 
Microsoft, why don't these equally wealthy competitors go do 
something better than Microsoft?
    If we ever want this country back on it's feet--and as a 
business owner--I certainly do, then we need to settle and end this 
. . . .Surely, we have more to do with our time than attack t he 
major companies in this country--which, if you haven't noticed--are 
having enough problems.
    With this settlement, I believe our finanacial markets will be 
revived.
    Phyllis G. Schaul
    Scottsdale, Arizona



MTC-00011712

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this painful, government sponsored targeting of 
Microsoft. The innovation that has been stopped as a result of this 
harrasement and the destruction to our economy is out of line with 
the already imposed penalities. No longer can justice be the banner 
for persuing Microsoft, now it is simply finanical greed, fed by 
biased legal teams.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011713

From: david j. oakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    With respect the comments on the proposed action, I am opposed 
to the Governments Action. From my point of view, having a multitude 
of operating systems, would be akin to moving from one universal 
language which all understand, to multiple languages, to which few 
understand more than one or two.
    The resulting catastrophic incompatability between operating 
systems would destroy the usefulness of comunications between 
computers in different locations.
    Respectfully
    David J. Oakley



MTC-00011714

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the proposed settlement and urge its approval. I 
am a professional software developer and a consumer of software. As 
both, I do not fell I have been harmed by Microsoft in any way.
    Approve this settlement and put an end to Microsoft competitors 
using the courts to fight their business battles.
    Sincerely,
    David Perdue
    Houston, TX



MTC-00011715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We feel that business has the right to research, develop, 
promote and sell new ideas and products. That's what the American 
way is all about--freedom, now more than ever. We encourage the 
government to end the litigation process against Microsoft and carry 
out the settlement that has been reached. It will eventually be best 
for consumers--prices will be kept down and new products will be 
available more readily if the costs of litigation, etc, are kept to 
a minimum and the company can spend resources on research and 
development and getting products to market.
    Phyllis and Hal Cutcher
    Tucson, Az
    [email protected]



MTC-00011716

From: Paul Holsted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen, I have only a limited knowledge of computers but it 
is very apparent that Microsoft has been a very important figure in 
the advancement of our national growth which has been astounding and 
wold not have reached this high level were it not for such firms as 
Microsoft. I feel that it is downright unfair to penalize Microsoft 
for its creative genius. The agreement between the Department of 
Justice and the nine states and Microsoft appears to be fair and any 
further litigation by the Attorneys General of the nine states which 
have not agreed to the DoJ/Microsoft agreement may be based on 
ulterior motives in pushing for heavier penalties. Therefore I urge 
the Department of Justice to not line up with the arguments of these 
states but instead to push for final resolution of this litigation 
so that Microsoft and the rest of our economy can move ahead. I feel 
that this issue has had a negative effect on the economy and so 
let's get the nation moving ahead and get this matter settled as 
soon as possible.
    Paul G. Holsted,
    9871 Mammoth Drive,
    Huntington Beach, CA 92646



MTC-00011717

From: Sherm Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    These comments are in opposition to Massachusetts Attorney 
General Tom Reilly's position on the Microsoft settlement as stated 
in the January 15, 2002, Boston Globe Public Forum piece, 
``Microsoft case key to tech's future,'' http://boston.com/
dailyglobe2/Ol5/business/Microsoft case--key--to--tech--s--
future+.shtml In this article, Attorney General Reilly makes 
suggestions to pursue remedies against Microsoft. In my opinion, 
that may result in the collapse of one of the world's foremost 
technology providers and the PC systems it makes work.
    Microsoft develops two distinct software product lines: an 
Operating System (Windows), which acts to assign priorities to 
internal PC operations and hardware and is rarely seen or worked on 
by the typical PC user, and applications, which perform specific 
tasks for the PC user like word processing, spread sheet 
manipulation and presentation preparation (MS Word, Excel, Power 
Point).
    The product at the core of Mr. Reilly's objections is the 
Operating System (OS). Developers of applications need to structure 
their software to function within the parameters specified by an OS. 
They have to do this for any OS, and many may do so for more than 
one: like Windows and Linux, for example. However, there is such a 
thing as optimization: making the applications run efficiently. Most 
application vendors want to have their product run as fast as 
possible on as many PCs as possible, so they optimize their product 
for Windows, the most used OS.
    Now, even if additional OSs are introduced just because Federal 
and State Governments believe that will lead to more and better 
products (it didn't with IBM's OS2), applications will still be 
optimized for just one, but not all OSs. This will result in a PC 
having its installed OS being able to run efficiently some, but not 
all, applications because application developers will not get enough 
return on their investment to


[[Page 25490]]


optimize their products for multiple 
OSs. Good business strategy says that the version of the product 
that should be most heavily optimized is the one that will be used 
on the PCs that have the most frequently installed OS. For now, 
that's Windows.
    This is not a restriction on emerging technologies. It is a fact 
of business, and contradicts Mr. Reilly's objective to have 
``computer users . . .  have a full choice of programs,'' and to ``. 
. . have [computer users have] the freedom to customize their 
systems with the programs and software they want.'' To have the full 
choice of optimized, efficient and fast-executing software, there 
should be one prevalent operating system in the same way there is 
and for years has been, essentially, one prevalent PC hardware 
architecture based on the original IBM PC. (Before you go there, 
based on sales and available applications, Apple is really a non-
player despite Microsoft providing a version of Office that runs 
efficiently on Apple systems. Notice how it takes a company the size 
of Microsoft to provide its flagship application optimized for more 
than one OS and hardware architecture.)
    The chaos surrounding creating competing hardware architectures 
would be akin to forcing into existence a second personal 
transportation system in which vehicles would run on tracks. What 
would be the cost of developing a second infrastructure? What would 
be the response of the vehicle manufacturers? Would there be as 
many? Would we still see the same vehicle quality? Would we still 
have as much vehicle innovation? Would there be as many vehicle 
choices? What would the vehicles cost?
    The same chaos would occur if Windows were gutted so that was no 
longer the prevalent OS. Windows may devolve in the future, but to 
force it would be disastrous. Technology evolution and user 
acceptance is generally based on rules similar to natural biological 
selection. Windows may fall into disfavor and be replaced by another 
OS, but Microsoft may be the company that creates that successor. 
Why try to artificially prevent that?
    Look what has happened with forcing High Definition TV into 
existence. Local TV program producers for all but the largest 
markets don't want to invest in HDTV production equipment until 
broadcasters invest in the new transmission equipment. Networks are 
reluctant to invest in HDTV equipment because there are insufficient 
local affiliates that can carry HDTV transmissions. TV set 
manufacturers don't want to invest in building HDTV sets until 
broadcasters transmit HDTV programs. Cable service providers don't 
want to invest in HDTV cable systems until there are HDTV programs 
in their markets and there are HDTV sets to receive them. Buyers 
don't want to pay exorbitant prices for HDTV sets and/or HDTV tuners 
and receiving antennas until there are enough programs being 
broadcast to make it worthwhile. (The only reason that there are any 
HDTV sets around is DVDs, and even those sets don't include HDTV 
tuners.) So, we're in a stand-off situation with the conversion 
process taking much longer than the Federal Government wanted.
    But, the real problem is not HDTV technology, but the decisions 
that broadcasters need to make about which one of the many picture 
quality options to transmit. This is contributing to the TV set 
manufacturers' reluctance to invest in sets that are optimized 
around one methodology and is keeping the variety of HDTV sets small 
and their price high.
    This sounds similar to the problems that would develop if 
multiple OSs were edicted into existence or if Microsoft were forced 
to relinquish their pre-eminent OS-developer position. The PC world 
would wind up with either fewer applications or the ones that were 
optimized for all OSs would become considerably more expensive.
    In fact, there is more than one OS currently available. The 
second OS that's most often noted is Linux. Now, how many popular 
applications are there currently for this OS? Who's stopping 
software developers from creating them?
    As to computer makers not having control of their systems' 
desktops, Mr. Reilly and the Department of Justice should realize 
that ``computer makers'' build hardware, not software, and that 
ultimately, the user controls what's on the desktop--not the 
hardware manufacturer, not the software manufacturer, but the user.
    And, it's not clear what an ``unbundled'' version of Windows 
does for anyone. What application is Mr. Reilly suggesting is now 
bundled? A browser? Well, it really is possible to install and use a 
browser other than Internet Explorer (like Netscape); it really is 
possible to install and use Lotus Smartsuite rather than Microsoft 
Office (neither of which is bundled with Windows). So what's the 
issue here?
    Here's another similar situation. Think of an automobile 
dashboard as being like a PC OS and the car radio as an application. 
At the moment, it's not usually possible to buy a car without some 
kind of vehicle manufacturers' radio pre-installed. Will the Federal 
Government and the States require automobile manufacturers to offer 
all cars without radios so purchasers can buy their own from either 
the vehicle manufacturer or some other vendor?
    Well, right now many cars owners can have their OEM radio 
replaced with an after-market one. However, not all auto 
manufacturers' radios have the same dimensions. And, if one examines 
the choices carefully, one finds that the variety of replacement 
radios available for Daimler-Chrysler and GM vehicles is far smaller 
than those available for cars using DIN dimensional standards. 
(Remember, too, the radio with the oval-shaped front panel used in 
the Ford Taurus? There don't seem to be any after-market products 
available for direct replacement.)
    Daimler-Chrysler and GM radios happen to be pretty good. But 
will the Federal Government and the States want a common form factor 
legislated that may diminish the quality, ease-of-use and feature 
flexibility of Daimler-Chrysler, GM and Ford radios?
    Mr. Reilly also contradicts his objective when he tries to make 
his point about ``. . . Microsoft disclos[ing] the necessary 
technical information so that handheld devices, servers and networks 
can work with Windows. . . '' If Federal and State Governments want 
this, won't there be more software development for the Windows OS 
than there is now rather than less? Doesn't this create more 
products and business for Microsoft? (And, in point of fact, there 
is more than one OS for handhelds already, and they and servers and 
networks can work with Windows.)
    Finally, perhaps it's wishful thinking, but one seriously doubts 
that the 3,200 software companies and 200,000 high-tech workers in 
Massachusetts would ever see any benefit from what Mr.
    Reilly wants to do to Microsoft.
    Sherman H. Grossman Needham, MA



MTC-00011718

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this pitiful, state government sponsored targeting of 
Microsoft. The innovation that has been stopped as a result of this 
harassment and the destruction to our economy is way out of line 
with the already imposed penalties. No longer can justice be the 
banner for pursuing Microsoft, now it is simply financial greed on 
the part of the states. CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011719

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please let this end once and for all,I believe that Microsoft 
has been very cooperative,etc. At least they didn't loose any 
records like Anderson or Enron.,or try to hid anything.Go after the 
real crooks like Enron,who left many middle class citizens without 
any money in their 401K,funny how bigshots could take money out but 
workers who save for retirement could not.I believe you have a much 
bigger problem than Microsoft and Bill Gates.



MTC-00011720

From: Diane Nice
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Nice
429 Morwood Road
Telford, PA 18969
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 


[[Page 25491]]


companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Diane



MTC-00011721

From: Randall Page
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randall Page
348 Freya Drive
Solvang, ca 93463
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into 


[[Page 25492]]


the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Randall S. Page



MTC-00011722

From: C. B. Goff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. B. Goff
2416 Denise Street
Benton, AR 72015-2624
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    C. B. Goff



MTC-00011723

From: Kelly Baker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kelly Baker
12337 Jones Road
Houston, TX 77070
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kelly Baker



MTC-00011724

From: Joseph W Pfahnl
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph W Pfahnl
2197 Glenkirk Dr
San Jose, CA 95124
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph W Pfahnl



MTC-00011725

From: Andrea Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrea Palmer
225 Capstan Drive
Placida, FL 33946-2221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Andrea Palmer



MTC-00011726

From: Thomas Dill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Dill
2325 Browning Drive
Janesville, WI 53546-1143
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Dill



MTC-00011727

From: Amy Hanson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Amy Hanson
6868 North Overhill #3
Chicago, IL 60631
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Amy Hanson



MTC-00011728

From: Sally Arnold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this litigation. It's time to move on. Microsoft 
has greatly benefitted consumers throughout the world. This mission 
of punishment is only costly taxpayers and Microsoft excessive 
expense. Please settle.
    Sally A. Arnold, CPCU, ARM, ARe
    Risk Management Consultant
    Self-Insurance Specialists, Inc.



MTC-00011729

From: James Coombs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Coombs
11127 Oviatt Road
Honor, MI 49640
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James Coombs



MTC-00011730

From: Kathy Sparks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathy Sparks
692 Cobble Dr.
Montrose, CO 81401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kathy Sparks



MTC-00011731

From: Richard Rizzo
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Rizzo
218 west noble ave.
bushnell, fl 33513-5414
January 15, 2002


[[Page 25493]]


Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice,
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Rizzo



MTC-00011732

From: Deborah Eaton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Deborah Eaton
100 Hickory Lane
Scottsville, KY 42164
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Eaton



MTC-00011733

From: Charles Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Palmer
225 Capstan Drive
Placida, FL 33946-2221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Palmer



MTC-00011734

From: Rosaline VanNess
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosaline VanNess
8505 Hanford Drive
Richmond, VA 23229-4719
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rosaline B VanNess



MTC-00011735

From: Laurie Grizzard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laurie Grizzard
2967 Mt. Pleasant Rd.
Franklin, GA 30217
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tim and Laurie Grizzard



MTC-00011736

From: Norm Donaldson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norm Donaldson
697 Carr Ave
Aromas, CA 95004
January 15, 2002


[[Page 25494]]


Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Norm Donaldson



MTC-00011737

From: Wyonia R Farner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wyonia R Farner
8426 Sunview Drive
El Cajon, Ca 92021-1627
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wyonia R Farner



MTC-00011738

From: ANTHONY THOMPSON
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ANTHONY THOMPSON
4801 ASHLEY TERRACE
MIDDLETOWN , OH 45042
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    ANTHONY E. THOMPSON



MTC-00011739

From: Sandi Fowler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandi Fowler
6437 Longmont tr;
Fort Worth, TX 76179-3715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sandi Fowler



MTC-00011740

From: Wendy Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendy Johnson
7875 Valencia Court
Highland, CA 92346-5753
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy L. Johnson



MTC-00011741

From: T. Mack Jennings
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
T. Mack Jennings
408 Lee St.


[[Page 25495]]


Sulphur Springs, TX 75482-4349
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    T. Mack Jennings



MTC-00011742

From: Jocelynn Bailey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jocelynn Bailey
13309 Sturno Drive
Clifton, VA 20124-0957
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jocelynn Bailey



MTC-00011743

From: Tamey Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tamey Johnson
4230 County Road 633
Clanton, AL 35045
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tamey Johnson



MTC-00011744

From: Connie Marthinsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Connie Marthinsen
202 Sarazen Meadow Way
Cary, NC 27513
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Marthinsen



MTC-00011745

From: stanley kimmel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is anti-American that you took action against Microsoft for 
their ability to do an excellent job of developing and selling their 
products. You should make every effort to settle and go about your 
business of prosecuting law breakers.
    Stanley Kimmel
    Box 23093
    Anchorage, KY 40223



MTC-00011746

From: William E. Gabel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William E. Gabel
2140 North Parkway Drive
Upper Arlington, OH 43221
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 


[[Page 25496]]

the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William E. Gabel



MTC-00011747

From: Francis M. Perry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis M. Perry
2005 S. Berry's Chapel Road
Franklin, TN 37069
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Francis M. Perry



MTC-00011748

From: Linda Schlange
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Schlange
27395 Cypress Street
Highland, CA 92346-3715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Linda L. Schlange



MTC-00011749

From: Emilia Neudorff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emilia Neudorff
7806 Jason Ave.
West HIlls, CA 91304-4434
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Emilia Neudorff



MTC-00011750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    Please count my opinion as being in support of Matthew Szulik, 
CEO of Red Hat. I have looked over the PFJ and feel it is seriously 
lacking in action against one of the richest, sleaziest corporations 
in the world.
    I would very much like to see the further actions that Mathew 
has proposed be taken into consideration and integrated into the 
Final Judgement. I believe that Microsoft should fund the 
advancement of alternative software and other operating systems 
(Macintosh and Linux) for a period of time to convey the message 
that you cannot use illegal methods to hold down your competition 
and suffocate free speech and free code.
    Sincerely,
    A concerned computer user.



MTC-00011751

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft Corporation is a first rate, 
first class company and the courts and justice system should stop 
penalizing it. They have been most generous in their settlement 
offers and contributions to schools. If other companies can't 
compete, it is not the fault of Microsoft. They can stop whining. 
The remaining states in litigation are just trying to grab some 
``free'' money and this should be discouraged. America should be 
proud of Microsoft and free it of all the legal entanglements! It 
stands for what USA capitalism is all about!
    Ann Mitcham
    (not connected in any way with Microsoft Corp.--don't even own 
any stock.)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011752

From: Jack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:08pm
Subject: Settlement agreement
    Please see the attached letter regarding the pending Microsoft 
agreement.
    John I. Schuler
    269 Glenbrook Drive
    Pittsburgh, PA 15237-5303
    15 January 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department of Justice
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    After three long years of legal wrangling the Microsoft 
antitrust case has finally seen an opportunity for resolution in the 
settlement reached last November. A continuation of litigation, such 
that Microsoft's competitors are now strongly lobbying for, will 
simply not benefit anyone but their competition, and thus will prove 
to be counter-productive for America.
    The current settlement offers much of which that the government 
and competing companies should be satisfied. It allows free access 
to Microsoft's source code and interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products. Additionally, Microsoft is 
obligated to design future versions of Windows to make it easier on 
consumers, manufacturers, and software developers to promote non-
Microsoft 


[[Page 25497]]

applications. This, in addition to many other restrictions 
and obligations, will be verified by a Technical Committee to ensure 
Microsoft's compliance.
    It appears to me that this settlement is the best way to put an 
end to this matter once and for all. I strongly urge to work towards 
the immediate resolution of this case. Thank you for your time and 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    John J. Schuler
    John J. Schuler
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00011753

From: Jean Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    To whom it may concern,
    I think it is about time that this gets settled for the good of 
the country and all it's citizens. I feel that who ever it is that 
is trying to do this to a good and inovative country is just plain 
stupid. Without Microsoft I hat to think where we would be.It is a 
terriable thing to think that someone wants to destroy a good 
thing.Just because they have some smart inovative people that are 
capable of doing such things should make us proud not want to 
destroy what is good.
    Sincerely
    Jean N. Smith



MTC-00011754

From: Joan Nims Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:09pm
Subject: litigation
    considering the damage already done to the economy it is 
extremely doubtful that further pursuit of litigation benifits 
anyone with the possible exception of a few who hope to gain 
political advantage. Isn't it long since time to stop the 
foolishness and get on with the work of this country.



MTC-00011755

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    After reviewing the settlement between the Department of Justice 
and Microsoft, I am of the opinion that this should move forward. It 
is not in the best interest of all parties to have this drag out any 
further. The settlement is Reasonable and Fair to all parties.
    There appears to bigger issues that the Department needs to 
address at this time.
    Thank you for your attention on this matter.
    J. C. Hart
    10821 East 25 Ave.
    Spokane WA 99206



MTC-00011756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT IS CLEAR TO ALL EXCEPT WANNABE POLITICOS IN THE PERSON OF 
STATE ATTY GENS (9) THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE SETTLED PROMPTLY. THE 
DAMAGE DONE TO THE ECONOMY IN THE QUEST TO PUNISH SUCCESS MUST BE 
CURBED. DO JUSTICE FOR THE NATION AND SETTLE THIS CASE THAT SHOULD 
NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    REX R. MALSON
    189 SHERWOOD DR
    BRANSON, MO 65616



MTC-00011757

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement is fair and just, for a couple of 
reasons.
    1. I do not believe this trial should have gone as far as it 
has. Every business and person has the choice of Operating system. I 
could get a Macintosh, I could load Unix or I could use a free 
version of Linux. The reason Microsoft has such a hold on the 
Computer OS and Software industry is because they come out with not 
neccessarily the best OS, but the best OS as a package, including 
support, the amount of Software available, and people knowledgeable 
in the product.
    2. This settlement will bring new technology to schools that 
currently have 3 year old computers and Software
    Sincerely,
    Terry L. Read
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011758

From: Betsy Brinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am Josephine Average Consumer and a taxpayer. To date, I still 
don't understand why my tax dollars are being spent to sue a 
legitimate business for being successful. I further don't understand 
why once a settlement is proposed nine states can hold up the 
process of getting on with life. I have sat back in awe and watched 
the tobacco growers being subsidized by the government to grow a 
produce which is then sold to the tobacco companies to produce a 
legal product that is sold to folks, with a huge tax collected by 
the government, and then having the government sue the tobacco 
companies because people choose to use a legal product that is not 
good for their health. The frosting on the cake is where the 
government then turns around and takes the money from the tobacco 
companies and uses it for general fund purposes, not related to 
health issues stemming from the use of tobacco. I am having a strong 
sense of deja vue with the Microsoft case. Undoubtedly the fact that 
some of my retirement is tied up in Microsoft stock biases my view. 
However, as I see it, the case needs to be settled so that Microsoft 
can get back to creating more innovations that do nothing but 
improve my life and as I understand it from the general media the 
proposed settlement seems to meet everyone's needs.
    Betty Brinson, J.D.
    W.S.B.A. #12190
    1811 ``C'' Street
    Bellingham, WA 98225



MTC-00011759

From: Mary Ann Censky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:59pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I would like to encourage all parties involved in the settlement 
negotiations to do everything in their power to come to full 
agreement on all remaining issues. I personally feel the downtown in 
the economy, which started declining about the time the government 
started their antitrust proceedings, is in large part due to the 
uncertainty created by the Government's pursuit of Microsoft over 
the last couple of years. Microsoft has done tremendous good for 
individual consumers, for business and for our overall economy. 
Claims that the consumer has been hurt are ludicrous--I belive there 
are very few consumers who believe this. If Microsoft's competitors 
developed comparable products and marketed them in the outstanding 
manner Microsoft has, then these antitrust pursuits would not have 
been necessary. I applaud the Federal Government's efforts in 
reaching a settlement and hope the remaining few states will see the 
wisdom in reaching a quick resolution of all remaining issues.
    Please everyone, let's put our Government resources where most 
needed--fighting domestic and international terroism and bringing 
our economy out of the recession--and let Microsoft keep developing 
their great products that allow individual consumers and small and 
large business to suceed in their endeavors. It's appalling to think 
about how much money has been spent on these legal proceedings--
let's end it now. If I were a taxpayer in the remaining states that 
haven't settled, I would be beyond furious.
    Thank you for your consideration of my feelings on this subject.
    Mary Ann Censky
    2731--77th Avenue SE--# 206
    Mercer Island, WA 98040
    Phone: 206-624-1695
    Fax: 206-624-1795



MTC-00011760

From: Duane Dier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  3:58pm
Subject: DoJ
    The department of Justice should immediately settle the 
Microsolf case, that never really was a case anyway, but rather, a 
governmental vendetta, birthed by greedy jealous competitors, and 
picked up by opportunistic politicians looking for the next 
corporation to raid. Remember the old saying ``when you rob peter to 
pay Paul, Paul is always on your side''. this is what this amounts 
to political extortion of a company that has helped free the world. 
Go Microsolt, and I do not own stock, and No one I know works for 
the company.
    Duane Dier,
    Seattle, Wa



MTC-00011761

From: Bob Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Yes, please settle the lawsuit with Microsoft. I agree with the 
current terms 


[[Page 25498]]


agreed upon by the parties involved. I believe that it 
is to this country's interest to allow Microsoft to focus on its 
core business instead of wasting money and resources on lawsuits 
such as this.
    Thank you.
    Bob Quinn
    The VB Applications Group
    25038 SE 40th Drive
    Issaquah, WA
    mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
    (425) 313-1013



MTC-00011762

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:14pm
Subject: Settle it
    As far as I am concerned the states that are holding out are 
doing it in either career enhancement on the part of the attorney 
generals there or they are function more as lobbyists for their in 
state high tech corporations and probably should have withdrawn 
themselves because of their bias. I don't feel ANYTHING put on the 
table would satisfy them short of Microsoft relinquishing total 
control of itself to them. This ends up being more like reverse 
monopoly stuff like reverse discrimination!
    Ron Walken
    Seattle, Wa



MTC-00011763

From: Jack Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the current Microsoft Settlement is fair and 
appropriate. I think that it would be a HUGE mistake to punish 
further this company.
    As someone who travels a great deal, I find it tremendously 
helpful to sit down at a computer in whatever country I'm in and 
find a Windows environment with which I am comfortable and which I 
can immediately use. Any settlement that reduces Microsoft's 
influence in maintaining consistency in worldwide computer operating 
systems would be a serious blow to international business and 
education.
    Jack Henderson
    Phippsburg, Maine



MTC-00011764

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:15pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    My opinion is, to settle the Action as soon as possible. This 
will be good to our Economy and provide more Stability to the 
Market. We do not need war within our Country.
    Juergen Brunke



MTC-00011765

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is fair and should be approved. 
Microsoft is a great company and should be allowed to continue 
without having this case going on forever. This is good for the 
economy and for America.
    As a consumer I am happy with this settlement and with most of 
Microsoft products. If I like another product Microsoft does not 
keep me from using it.
    Thank You
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011766

From: Woody Tweed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:16pm
Subject: opinion
    Lets put this behind us and let the economy go forward. The 
whole case should have been thrown out of court.
    Woody Tweed
    Linn Creek Mo. 65052



MTC-00011767

From: 432kabl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Dept. of Justice:
    It is long past time to end the government attacks on Microsoft. 
The dominance of the computer industry that Microsoft has 
unquestionably attained is primarily the result of serving the needs 
of computer users better than any other company. Microsoft has made 
immense contributions to the rising prouctivity that is the primary 
source of our exceptional prosperity in recent years. That kind of 
innovation is the main hope for restoring prosperity after the 
current recession.
    The last thing our government should be doing is attacking and 
penalizing innovation. In the interest of all computer users, please 
just find a graceful way to bring all of the threatened litigation 
and regulatory harrassment to an early conclusion. This would send a 
strong message that creativity and resourcefulness are still 
encouraged in the United States; not punished.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Naegle
    (Small business owner)



MTC-00011768

From: Jerry Stump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone.
    I so much appreciate their software; Microsoft is my friend. I 
despise Apple.
    Let us get on with other more important items and let this great 
company Microsoft continue to innovate.
    Jerry Stump
    1109 20th Street
    Belleville, KS 66935



MTC-00011769

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:16pm
Subject: Breakup the Monopoly --
    I feel MS should be made an example of for it's arrogance. 
Knowing they could fund a longer court battle than most foreign 
governments, the delays and non-disclosure of meetings with Federal 
officials cleary shows the reason for the court's rejection of the 
proposed settlement.
    MS should be fined with the largest fine in US history, after 
all they are the richest US company in history. They should also be 
required to allow the operating systems that are pre-installed in 
retail machines to be the choice of the computer manufacturer. So if 
Compaq wants to run Linux, UNIX, or even Apple Computer's Mac OS in 
their machines.
    Nor should pre-bundled software packages be the choice of the 
software providers. Consumers who ultimately use these softwares, on 
any platform, should be able to choose from a bare-bones 
configuration to a fully installed complete suite of softwares, and 
from the software manufacturers of OUR choice.
    We aren't required to use a certain brand of gasoline in our 
cars, nor should we be required to use only one brand of software in 
a computer. In example; MS Windows 2000 costs over $500 in Green 
Bay, WI and the current MacOS offering has two complete operating 
systems for only $130.
    This company has shown too many times it's cavalier attitude 
about what it can and cannot do, and the victims are the creative 
people, the educators and the business users of personal computers. 
We are forced to buy computer systems filled with overpriced 
softwares that 90% of users will never take advantage of.
    So I hope the courts decision will consider the damage caused 
our social structure because of this monopolistic practice.



MTC-00011770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Department of Justice
    Sirs, To my opinion the setlement agreed between the parties is 
reasonable and will benefit the economy ofd the country and 
consumers are happy that such a great organization are backed by 
people and the government . This encourages the scientists to 
further innovations without fear of government's unnecessary 
restrictions.
    Ghassem Ladjevardi
    Tucson AZ



MTC-00011771

From: Anthony Macaluso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:19pm
Subject: action
    WHEN IS OUR TRUSTED GOVERNMENT GOING TO OPEN IT'S EYE'S? AND SEE 
THAT WE HAVE GONE DOWN HILL EVER SINCE THEY HAVE UNDERTAKEN THIS 
ACTION AGAINST ONE OF OUR GREATEST COMPANY'S, THAT HAS COME ALONG IN 
MANY YEARS. OUR ECONOMY NEEDS A BOOST NOT A KICK IN THE PANTS AS 
THEY HAVE DONE . WHAT A REWARD MR. GATES HAS RECEIVED FOR ALL HIS 
EFFORTS TO BRING US AHEAD IN THE WORLD ECONOMY. I HOPE WE LEARNED A 
LESSON , THAT PUNISHING A COMPANY OR PERSON'S FOR DOING GOOD WILL 
NOT GET US ANY PLACE FAST. PLEASE STOP THIS NEEDLESS 


[[Page 25499]]


WASTE OF TAX 
PAYER MONEY. YOU HAVE SPEND MORE TIME AND MONEY TRYING TO BRING THIS 
COMPANY TO IT'S KNEES, AND LOOK WHAT IT HAS DONE TO US.
    MR. ANTHONY MACALUSO



MTC-00011772

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:20pm
Subject: Settlements For Microsoft
    Dear Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    Microsoft was a treasure of this country for the twenty century, 
and will also be for the next century. Without the Microsoft's high 
tech contributions during the last twenty years, this country could 
well be behind Japan, Britain in the competition of the computer 
technologies. Consumers benifit from the Microsoft's products.
    The settlement between DOJ and Microsoft should be done as soon 
as possible. Otherwise, our economy will continues to suffer.
    Those nine states want to continue litigation are not the public 
best interests nor good for the economy. They should also accept the 
terms of settlements that agree between DOJ and Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time>
    Sincerely,
    Min Hue Lu
    Computer Scientist



MTC-00011773

From: Louis DeVito
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    I think i is time for everyone to wake up and stop trying to 
beat a dead horse. The amount of money and time spent on trying to 
squeeze another dollar out of Microsoft is just so stupid. There is 
a reasonable settlement on the table, a settlement that was put 
together by some very wise people with very sincere motives who 
wanted to move on rather than spend the rest of their lives 
litigating. Courts are to resolve problems, not find a way for 
simpletons to waste their lives on de minimus petty schemes. The 
courts should force a settlement which for all intensive purposes 
appears reasonable.



MTC-00011774

From: Mary Browning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sending this message to register my strong opinion that the 
Microsoft case should be settled now and that no more public time, 
energy or money should be expended in the pursuit of the case.
    As a resident of Connecticut I especially deplore the dogged 
efforts of the Attorney General of Connecticut to depict Microsoft 
and Bill Gates as Public Enemy Number One.
    Surely he and the other attorneys general must have true 
criminals to pursue. Innovation and energetic enterprise like that 
of Gates/Microsoft are part of what has made this country the power 
it is.
    ``Enough already!''
    Mary-Leggett Browning Waterford, CT



MTC-00011775

From: K Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:21pm
Subject: Department of Justice seeks public comment
    The Microsoft law suit is dragging on when a fair settlement has 
been negotiated. It seems that states just want more money. Let's 
get it over with. This is not good for the country.
    Kevin Ward



MTC-00011776

From: Mark Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think it is important to end the law suit and get on with 
life. Enough is enough. The Attorney Generals pursuing this case are 
self serving.
    Thank you for reading this.
    Mark Jorgensen



MTC-00011777

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the anti trust case with Microsoft should be settled. I 
believe the unsettled case is a negative on our economy.
    Ralph Trimble
    Findlay, OH



MTC-00011778

From: Susan Barbetti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    Please, settle the Microsoft case as is. It should not go into 
futher litigation. The Settlement is fair and very generous and it 
will help thousands of children. Those that don't want to see this 
case settled are furthering a case of ``sour grapes''.
    Thank you for accepting my comments.
    Susan Barbetti
    30120 N. 65th St.
    Cave Creek, AZ 85331



MTC-00011779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    IT IS TIME TO GET OFF MICROSOFT'S BACK. THIS STARTED BACK WHEN 
BILL CLINTON WAS TRYING ANYTHING TO GET THE ATTENTION OFF OF HIM, 
SINCE THEN THE STOCK MARKET AND THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN IN DECLINE.
    THIS WILL PROBABLY END UP LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE THE GOVERNMENT 
HAS TRIED TO FIX THAT WASN'T BROKEN, SUCH AS THE DEREGULATION OF THE 
TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC SERVICE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE TELEPHONE COSTS 
HAVE GONE UP QUITE A BIT SINCE THE SO CALLED FIX AND CALIFORNIA HAD 
A ROUGH TIME WITH POWER SINCE THAT ``FIX'' WAS PUT IN.
    MICROSOFT PRODUCTS HAVE ALWAYS HAD A REASONABLE PRICE AND ARE 
SOME OF THE BEST ON THE MARKET. THE STATES THAT DON'T WANT TO SETTLE 
ARE ONLY LOOKING OUT FOR COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THEIR STATES THAT 
CAN'T MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT HELP AND THESE COMPANIES ARE 
PROBABLY KICKING IN A LOT OF MONEY TO THE CAMPAIGN FUNDS OF THESE 
POLITICIANS.
    I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT EVERYBODY WAS TRYING TO ``BUILD A BETTER 
MOUSETRAP'', APPARENTLY THESE OTHER COMPANIES WANTED TO WAIT FOR 
MICROSOFT TO BUILD IT AND THEN TRY TO STEAL IT WITH THE HELP OF THE 
GOVERNMENT.



MTC-00011780

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The whole case was mainly initiated by some companies can not 
effectively compete in market. Every actions Microsoft is accused 
of, such as give away products, boundle products, discount for 
volumn venders, are common practice of IT industry. All other 
businesses, including those joined in the case in suing MS(Netscape, 
Sun, Oracle, AOL), have taken those actions, the only difference is 
they could not do it better.
    It is time to close this case, let government get out of the 
marketplace, and let consumers to vote with their own money. In long 
run, if MS is guilty, the marketplace will punish it.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011781

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:27pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement with the States' Attornies 
General.
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my opinion on the settlement of the 
Microsoft case. It's inappropriate that these proceedings are 
continued. As a user of Microsoft at not only at home but also at 
work. I can do my daily tasks with a great deal of concentration on 
the task at hand versus having to worrying through the ``how to do'' 
feat.
    My wife had taught many Unemployed persons as an Adjunct 
Professor at Drexel University for a few years. The money was put 
into this activity, with the intent of preparing the Student to have 
the necessary Software to qualify for a job. Most Students had 
little trouble learning the MS Word, Excel, Access, and Outlook.
    The fact that most of the American (and possibly most of the 
World's) Commerce run so profitably and easily is that there is a 
commonality of Software Tools, made possible by Microsoft. The ease 
of operation has allowed these Students, the Unemployed, to get 
those jobs in that they came with the necessary tools which 
permitted them to begin earning their keep. They had the 


[[Page 25500]]


confidence to spend their time over several months 
at 2-3 nights a week knowing 
that their efforts were not in vain. Why? American employers run on 
Microsoft! And they were prepared. high time that this case be 
ended.
    This lawsuit has dragged on and wasted a great deal of time and 
(our Taxpayer) money in the process. Microsoft has changed the 
entire computer industry, giving consumers and businesses superior 
products. Their operating system enabled a great compatibility that 
has not been offered by any other company. Why would anyone want to 
switch to another system and other software that doesn't even work 
with one another?
    I worked for five major companies as an Electrical Engineer and 
Manager/Vice President, using Microsoft in some way or another in 
all of my jobs. Microsoft products allowed me to concentrate on 
``What'', not ``How''. Microsoft is being punished for creating 
innovative technologies that have changed our computer industry, our 
business practices, our economic practices and even our methods of 
government forever. Just look at the simplification that the IRS has 
enjoyed now that Tax Returns can and are filed electronically (45 
Million 2000 Federal returns at last count). Microsoft's efforts 
should be rewarded, not penalized.
    .Think about how difficult it would be for you and those in your 
family to surf the Net, send Letters to the Editor, check their Bank 
Statement, pay their Bills, and even check the Weather without a 
ubiquitous and uniform means of communication. Just trying to change 
from Apple (Java) to an IBM, or other (Microsoft) computer. It's a 
waste.
    This is analogous to the early problems of selecting between a 
Beta or a VCS Videotape system. We all use the VCS now. There was no 
government intervention. The people, the Buyers chose the better 
system. Did that selection prevent other bright Engineers from now 
offering CD's and DVD players? No! That's progress.
    The proposed settlement is quite equitable for all parties. As I 
understand: Microsoft is conceding a great deal in order to move on. 
They are giving away some of their coding and interface design to 
competing software developers, as well as protocols for their server 
systems. They have also agreed not to enter into any contracts 
obligating third party distribution of Windows. Should any problems 
arise, the Technical Oversight Committee would make sure that 
Microsoft complies with the terms of the settlement, further 
ensuring fair competition. I for one, urge that the proposed 
settlement be upheld.
    God Bless America and protect our Troops!
    Sincerely,
    Phillip M.Connaught
    1409 Chancellor Circle
    Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00011782

From: SteveGertsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I think the case should be settled the way the DOJ and Microsoft 
agreed upon. Get it done and let us get back to our business.
    Steve Gertsch
    [email protected]
    http://www.pindersoft.com



MTC-00011783

From: Steve Chittenden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Thank-you for requesting input from citizens of this country. I 
believe that Microsoft has paid the price of any misgivings they 
have done. It is time that all states and Department of Justice 
settle this matter and get on with the work at hand. Thank-you again 
for the opportunity to respond. In His Service,
    Steve Chittenden



MTC-00011784

From: Swauger, Fred
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suit
    Agreed settlement is more than fair where would we be w/o 
windows the cosumer was not harmed who did the suit protect?
    Frederic Swauger
    (503) 639-2311, (503) 639-2312(Fax)



MTC-00011785

From: RON LITTLE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement this needs to be settled now !!



MTC-00011786

From: larry novak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft law suit
    Dear Sirs;
    I believe we have held this company up in the air not allowing 
microsoft to do what it does best, give us next products that will 
move this economy foreward.
    The entire country is on hold waiting for these state lawyers to 
cut up the pie for their state and most of all for their own gain. . 
Enough, get this ended and send the beggars out of the chambers.
    Lawrence Novak



MTC-00011787

From: Jun Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I oppose the settlement because I don't believe it is in the 
public interest to do so. The monopoly power of Microsoft will not 
change, nor will its practice, given their strategy of always moving 
one step ahead and rendering court judgment irrelevant due to the 
lag introduced by litigation.
    Jun Zhang
    Associate Professor
    University of Michigan, Ann Arbor



MTC-00011788

From: Kayani, Dr. Sohail
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov.'
Date: 1/15/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    The purpose of a settlement should be fair to parties concerned 
and this settlement is in line with that. However, certain states 
that primarily include Microsoft's competitors, will like to use the 
opportunity to do as much harm as they can in the name of an open 
platform. If their products are good, the market would embrace them. 
It seems a proxy fight for Sun, Apple and Oracle that these states 
are trying to fight. The intention of the Attorney General of these 
states would be considered neutral if they had publicly disclosed 
the absence of any financial backing by these companies to their 
election campaign.
    Sohail Kayani, MD
    322 Saybrook Road
    Orange, CT 06477



MTC-00011789

From: Doris J. Lafferty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle and end litigation . It has been too long and too 
distructive.
    Doris J. Lafferty and Walter E. Lafferty



MTC-00011790

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft has done more than any other company to grow the 
computer industry. Before Microsoft computers were marketed to large 
institutions. Microsoft has brought the computer into homes world 
wide. They have done this by making computers easy to use for the 
general population and marketing products that we want. Microsoft 
has done their homework and they have received an A+. This is not 
according to me but according to the consumers who have purchased 
their products.
    For the good of the industry, settle the lawsuit and allow the 
computer market to grow again. When Microsoft starts making products 
that the public doesn't want or makes products that don't work, the 
market will run from Microsoft. When other companies start making 
better products than Microsoft, the market will run to them. IBM was 
once the computer leader but they didn't have the vision or the 
product line that the general public wanted. Today, Dell is 
capturing the market share of the the PC market. Dell is getting it 
by making an affordable, reliable product. Microsoft has done the 
same thing, they created a good product and made it affordable. They 
need to take their lumps but let the market give it to them.
    Settle the lawsuit.
    Mick Stoffel



MTC-00011791

From: bearflat(a)jps.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:32pm
Subject: (no subject)
    please settle in microsoft's favor.
    shirley ross


[[Page 25501]]





MTC-00011792

From: Stu Sjouwerman
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:40pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    It's time to get this over with! The U.S. government should not 
be used as a competitive weapon.
    Warm regards,



MTC-00011793

From: Bob Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft DOJ Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement reached with Microsoft in the 
Anti-Trust case. Please stop wasting taxpayer money. Consumers were 
not harmed.
    Sincerely
    Robert Longariello
    Taxpayer and Citizen
    [email protected]



MTC-00011794

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please move forward with the Microsoft settlement. The lack of a 
settlement is destructive to all of our businesses. When you think 
of the legal wrangling and the lack of focus inherent in a situation 
such as this, it is apparent that the real losers are the smaller 
companies and consumers.
    As a business owner, I want Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, etc. . 
concentrating on improving their products and services rather than 
attending to legal needs that ultimately help no one other than the 
legal profession.
    Thak you,
    Fred West
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011795

From: Frank/Chris Pizzeri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the anti trust settlement and both my wife and I 
believe it is just. Please conclude this action now. Continuing the 
pursuit of this matter will be unlikely to serve justice. Those who 
would be served by furtherance may achieve some small gains for 
their cause at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.
    The law of ``unintended consequences'' has had a great negative 
affect on the american public through a lack of confidence.
    So ``ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!''
    Frank & Chris Pizzeri
    Stuart, Fl



MTC-00011796

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the Microsoft settlement as proposed earlier. 
Let's stop fooling around and get down to business.
    Leo Hojnicki



MTC-00011797

From: Potter, Bob Ext.1411
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm begging you--Please get of Microsoft's back. You have had 
your viewpoint skewed by competitors of Microsoft that could not win 
in the market place so they are using you to get their way. Don't be 
used. The business world is not a philanthropic organization. It is 
market driven. Microsoft has won in the market place. Lets get on 
with life!!!
    Regards,
    Bob Potter
    (831) 796-1411
    www.co.monterey.ca.us



MTC-00011798

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's end this and stop wasting more taxpayer dollars. The 
computer industry changes so fast that Microsoft will have to adapt, 
or be left in the cold. Please accept the recent setelement, and 
let's get back to work.
    Greg Olson
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011799

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets have a settlement ASAP and get on with life.



MTC-00011800

From: Tjack1931
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/14/02  10:56pm
Subject: Re Antitrust Microsoft
    Dear Justice Department I would like to voice my Opinion on the 
Antitrust settlement with Microsoft. I think as a Taxpayer and Voter 
it is about time that this nonsense suit is put to sleep. The people 
that Originally brought this suit in the first place are expanding 
and Monopolizing more than Microsoft ever has.(AOL-Time Warner) Sun 
Microsystems) etc.I think that Microsoft has done so much for us 
beginner computer users, and still do.
    Sincerely
    Helga Jackson
    4318 So 325th St.
    Auburn, WA 98001
    [email protected]



MTC-00011801

From: James Plummer
To: mailto:[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My input to this long delayed settlement, is to accept the plan 
which was and is acceptable to so large a percentage of the 
population. Let's get it settled as part of the country's effort to 
get the economy going.
    Thankyou.
    James W. Plummer,
    2129 Quail Poiint Ct.
    Medford, Or 97504



MTC-00011802

From: kenneth goff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets get this settled, Microsoft has done more for the computer 
than anyone. They don't deserve this kind of treatment.



MTC-00011803

From: Edens, Jim
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Any further modification of this settlement is 
just an attempt by inept competitors to gain an advantage in the 
marketplace. If Microsoft's products were not valuable the market 
would not reward Microsoft with business. Those states that are 
opting out of the settlement and working to pursue their own 
lawsuits are spending the public's money unwisely and are looking 
for a scapegoat and a free handout.
    Jim Edens
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
    - QUOTE OF THE DAY -``The true meaning of life is to plant 
trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.''--Nelson 
Henderson



MTC-00011804

From: Lee and Helen DeGroff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel the settlement is fair and equitable and the states that 
have not accepted it are not being fair to us, the consumer. Please 
let my voice be heard. Helen B. DeGroff



MTC-00011805

From: Charles, Robert F
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I say ``Enough is enough is enough!'' I feel Microsoft has 
endured more than any company has endured for this Antitrust 
litigation. As I stated in an earlier EMAIL to your office, these 
Anti Trust laws were designed to protect consumers--NOT COMPETITORS! 
After all, look who has brought Microsoft's alleged misgivings to 
light. Competitors!
    I do thank the DOJ for looking out for my best interests; 
however, I have yet to hear a consumer say anything derogatory about 
the products that Microsoft sells. Please give Microsoft a fair 
ruling. . . .
    Enough is enough is enough. Let Microsoft get back what it does 
best; serving the customer/consumer with new innovative exciting 
products that make the world a better place--not stepping aside so 
that second rate products can cheapen the American way of life. 
Please rule in favor of Microsoft.
    Sincerely, Rob Charles
    Robert F. Charles
    Global Automotive Americas North
    RF Project Reliability Engineer
    tyco Electronics /AMP Incorporated


[[Page 25502]]


    *(336) 727-5847 *(336) 727-5068
    *[email protected]
    *Mail Stop 079-12
    PO Box 55
    3800 Reidsville Road
    Winston-Salem, NC 27102-0055



MTC-00011806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The original reasons driving the settlement no longer are valid. 
The industry and the forces driving it have changed too much. We 
slapped Microsoft's hands and they listened. I believe, of all of 
the companies that will be watched and scrutinized, Microsoft is at 
the top. They can not afford to mess up. They have their mandate and 
I firmly believe they will stick by it.
    I have been dealing with Microsoft for over a decade and have 
given them more personal information than any other company. It 
never has been abused and I trust them explicitly when they say it 
will not be given out or sold. Granted, they were bullish five or so 
years ago. They absolutely have changed and are sincere in their 
efforts to remedy how they conduct business. I like what they have 
to offer and it would hurt my business dramatically if they had to 
break up or stop making their products. Breaking up the company 
would hurt the American economy more than it would resolve anything. 
Think of the impact on the thousands of other companies that rely on 
the Microsoft platform for what they do and how they live. Microsoft 
is one of the few innovators left in the industry. I like that. That 
is why they spend billions of dollars in research each year ? to 
bring us new and creative solutions that keep our economy flowing. 
There also is no technical way that providing source code would 
work. It changes too fast and it would do more harm than good for 
the world to make broken derivatives from it. They provide more pre-
release documentation, technology strategies, sample code, training, 
and seminars than any other company out there. The only reason 
competitors want their source is because they cannot figure out how 
to do it themselves.
    Stop wasting our money and get on with spending it on more 
important things. The only people that care are the press, media, 
and politicians that want to get re elected. There are too many 
other problems facing the nation right now and this just drains the 
scarce resources we don?t have. Microsoft can afford to keep those 
states tied up for longer than they can afford to keep plugging away 
on a loosing battle going. Take Microsoft's offer and run with it. 
It all will work out in the end because we will not let it happen 
any other way.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011807

From: Paul Lingham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:46pm
    Paul Lingham
    47 Bird Grove
    Stokes Valley
    Lower Hutt
    Wellington
    Phone 049735747
    Mobile 0212586580



MTC-00011807--0001

    I'd like to think that this is a good middle-of-the-road set of 
suggestions. I don't side with ABMers much like I don't side with 
NMBers. I just want a better computing environment.
    Here's what I'd like:
    1. Force Microsoft to adopt a file format for all Office 
applications and PUBLISH their spec. Note that I am not asking for 
the publication of the source code of Office, simply the description 
of the file formats used.
    This way, people can use other Office suites (PerfectOffice, 
SmartSuite, StarOffice) without wondering if the files created will 
load properly in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. . .  Just this would 
open up some competition in the Office Suite market.
    2. Force Microsoft to publish every single API in Windows. 
Again, I am not asking for the publication of the windows source 
code, but simply to the Application Programming Interface. This 
would have two benefits: It would make sure that every service, 
every facility is clearly exposed for use while at the same time, 
removing the cloud of suspicion that Microsoft has some secret APIs 
that make their applications work better than others.
    3. Muzzle the Microsoft FUD division. This is by far the most 
irritating aspect of Microsoft as a business entity. They generate 
FUD and make belive that other competing products are not good while 
it's far from the case. Feel free to select your example, there are 
tons of them out there.
    4. Forbid them to use the words ``innovate'' and ``innovation'' 
unless they can specifically show that they are the first-movers for 
the particular product they are advertising. Again, there are tons 
of examples out there where Microsoft has been only an ``adapter'' 
as opposed to an ``innovator''
    5. Offer a striped-down version of Windows. Just the bare bones 
and a text-based browser (like Lynx) for initial download of the 
browser of choice. Nothing else built-in, nothing else cobbled 
together. A base install should not be more than 20 Megabytes and 
should scream on Pentium-class machines.
    6. Word the requirements that hefty fines will be leveraged for 
non-compliance. Hopefully, this way, we'll have more competition and 
a better computing environment. As well, if Microsoft is still 
dominant after this, it'll be because they have earned it the good 
old-fashioned way and we'll have little if anything to complain 
about.



MTC-00011808

From: Carnes Chapin P GS-13 AFOTEC/TSS
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  4:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a consumer, I want the government to settle now. Microsoft 
has top notch products at ever decreasing prices. Stop wasting my 
tax dollars on this insane case. Send a message to the cry babies 
like Oracle, Sun etc--if you can't win in the market place--go find 
another business to get in.
    Patrick Carnes



MTC-00011809

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am pleased to be given the opportunity to comment on the 
settlement under the Tunney Act.
    Given that both Microsoft and the DOJ have agreed upon terms 
that address the concerns of the original complaint, I am all in 
favor of proceeding with the settlement.
    In all honesty, I never felt Microsoft has harmed consumers, 
even though deemed a monopoly. Microsoft has been a key force in 
driving the computer industry, and enabled numerous companies 
(media, hardware, and software) to grow and thrive. Enough time and 
money has been spent on this litigation. Proceed with the 
settlement.
    Robin Maffeo
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011810

From: wally rasmussen
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please no further litigation. Settle NOW.



MTC-00011811

From: Steve Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:53pm
Subject: anti-trust suit
    To Whom It May Concern: Enough already. The liberals have 
attacked the economy on several fronts, and the result is the bad 
economy we have now and the weak economy we have had for 6 or more 
years. Continue with the Microsoft witch hunt and not only is this 
an action that does not represent the publics interest at large, but 
the NASDAQ and the technology industry as a whole will continue to 
suffer! We all can see what the results of that are, but it could 
get much worse. Microsoft as a company is not an angel, and they are 
not totally innocent. But the settlement is more than fair. More 
would be, in my opinion, mean and vindictive. And ultimately very 
damaging to everyone except those that might benefit from a shift in 
political power, or who might get some gratification for tearing 
down someone else's achievement which they envy. End this travesty 
of justice now and help the American People get back to work.
    Thanks.
    Steve Parker
    [email protected]



MTC-00011812

From: Gary(u)Withrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I vote for Microsoft in this issue.



MTC-00011813 

From: Arlena-Ann B. Neff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft controversey


[[Page 25503]]


    I strongly feel that this matter has gone on long enough and 
it's time to reach a settlement. Furthermore, I feel that the terms 
offered by Microsoft are more than adquate and should be accepted by 
the courts and contesting states. It's time to move forward and have 
everyone put their efforts in a more fruitful direction, instead of 
beating this issue endlessly to death. Let's accept Microsoft's 
offer and let the technology world move forward in other more 
positive areas.
    Arlena Neffl



MTC-00011814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:52pm
Subject: Anti-trust lawsuit by various states
    The States Attorneys General who involved themselves in the 
Justice Dept. lawsuit against Microsoft bring nothing to the table. 
They are in it for the publicity and because they have nothing to 
lose. They are still giddy from the windfall they got from their 
tobacco settlement and hope to extort money from Microsoft. I am a 
consumer and I have benefitted enormously from the products that 
Microsoft has created. These greedy attorneys general should be 
thrown out of court. They are contemptible extortionists who deserve 
no credibility.
    Sincerely,
    James A. McGrath



MTC-00011815

From: Robert And Vivian Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    We would like to express our support for immediate settlement of 
the Microsoft case. We think that the marketplace has proven that 
Microsoft is an example of a company that we should support. Their 
innovative ways of providing consumers with the best-possible 
software choices work. No more litigation!!
    Thanks for listening,
    Vivian and Robert Weber



MTC-00011816

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:56pm
Subject: Settlement
    We fully support Microsoft for a fair settlement which primarily 
will benefit consumers maintaining the integrity of an institution 
which on the other hand is one of the strogest pillars of the 
economy of the United States of America.
    Respectfully,
    Victor Estaba, M.D. & Carmen Estaba



MTC-00011817

From: Wayne/Eileen Grove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Settle now. without delay.



MTC-00011818

From: beverly wakeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT WAS FAIR AND JUST. BUSINESS'S SHOULD 
HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE. THE NINE STATES OPPOSING THE 
SETTLEMENT ARE COMPETITORS. MICROSOFT PROVIDES JOBS FOR THOUSANDS. 
IT IS TIME YOU SETTLE AND LET ALL INVOLVED MOVE ON.



MTC-00011819

From: JOHN (038) Mary McLauchlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Many of us are quite upset that the justice system has not 
declared a mis-trial in the case against Microsoft who was found 
guilty by a judge (Jackson) who has publicly acknowledged that he is 
bias when it comes to Microsoft or Bill Gates.



MTC-00011820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:00pm
Subject: Mark Rourke
    Microsoft is a company that has added immeasurably to the 
ability of a nonprofit agency, like mine, to keep costs down and do 
more with our limited resources. I oppose and measures that would 
stifle the success and generosity of Microsoft. I am continually 
disheartened at the penalties implemented by the US Justice 
Department.
    Mark Rourke
    Director
    Bement Camp and Conference Center



MTC-00011821

From: EMIL (038) BONNIE KELLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe that the present arrangement for settlement of the 
Microsoft case is fair and should be accepted. We do not need more 
litigation.
    Emil Keller
    11909 Bayswater Rd
    Gaithersburg, Md. 20878



MTC-00011823

From: Kenneth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Antitrust Proposal Comments
    Comments on settlement proposal http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9400/9495.htm Under Prohibited conduct: Section D: First paragraph.
    In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the 
disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than 
the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware.
    The phrase major beta test seems overly vague. I suggest 
restating it to read: ldquo;shall occur no later than the last test 
release released to over 20% of licensees who normally receive test 
releases from Microsoft.''
    (Commentary: Microsoft could quite easily move from an Alpha/
Beta test cycle to an extended Alpha cycle or simply introduce an 
Alpha/Beta/Gamma or some new totally orthogonal process which would 
render the entire paragraph useless.)
    Section G: Third paragraph, that prohibits such entity from 
competing with the object of the joint venture or other arrangement 
for a reasonable period of time. The phrase ``for a reasonable 
period of time.'' seems vague. I suggest restating it to read:
    ``for a time period consistent with industry practices.''
    Section H: Says ``provided that the technical reasons are 
described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests 
them.''
    This phrase appears to allow Microsoft to develop hidden APIs 
and features, release them and then claim that no one else supports 
them and then only provide the documentation to an ISV that 
specifically requests it etc.
    I suggest restating it to read:
    ``provided that the technical reasons are clearly described in 
existing documentation released under the guidelines of this order''
    Section J: ``disclosure of which would compromise the security'' 
As all of the products described are security products and as the 
term security is continually mis and reinterpreted (Microsoft itself 
being a large infractor).
    I suggest restating it to read:
    ``disclosure of which would compromise the effectiveness''
    Kenneth Kron (CTO)
    Last modified: Tue Jan 15 13:59:37 PST 2002



MTC-00011824

From: John Garrison, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I retired three years ago after over 40 years in the information 
technology field with the last 32 years in a variety of mid and 
upper level management positions. While I personally preferred the 
UNIX operating system, I found the Microsoft Windows operating 
system was preferred by most of my technical staff and non technical 
users as it was easily learned and offered tremendous capability at 
a very reasonable price. Based on this experience, I feel it has 
been indeed an injustice to Microsoft and the American people that 
unworthy competitors has used the political process in an effort to 
survive. It is interesting to note that the nine states that have 
not agreed to the settlement are states that are home to some of the 
companies that simply cannot compete on their own merit. Request the 
settlement as agreed to by all but nine states be finalized as is. I 
believe the settlement is more than fair to the public interest.
    Respectfully submitted:
    John E. Garrison, Sr.
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00011825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:01pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement proposed by the US Department of Justice 
and nine states is, 


[[Page 25504]]


in my opinion, inadequate because it doesn't 
address the problems that made Microsoft a monopoly in the first 
place and the enforcement procedures proposed are insipid.
    Microsoft is currently a monopoly because they've engaged in a 
repeated practice of bundling ``feature'' software with their 
Windows operating system. Since the Windows OS is a monopolistic 
operating system, bundling these features is, in effect, predatory 
pricing because it drives the other vendors of the feature software 
out of business because they can't compete with the features offered 
by Microsoft for ``free''. Any remedy intended to fix the antitrust 
practices of Microsoft has to address this issue.
    Furthermore, having any agreed-upon remedies enforced by a 
``Technical Committee'' comprised of members that Microsoft 
partially chooses is tantamount to having ``the fox guard the hen 
house.'' I believe that if the current settlement is agreed upon it 
may lead to certain short-term benefits for consumers, vendors 
involved with Microsoft and certain macroeconomic forces in the 
world, but I strongly believe that the far more important long-term 
benefits of software innovation and real consumer competition in the 
computer software, computer security and computer hardware 
industries will suffer consequences far greater than any short-term 
benefits if the remedies aren't reworked to be effective.
    Thank you,
    Respectfully,
    Jim Dixon
    Staff Software Engineer
    Enterprise Services
    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
    9800 Mt. Pyramid Ct. Suite 300
    Englewood, CO 80112
    Phone: 720/895-3041
    Fax: 720/895-1607
    E-Mail:
    [email protected]



MTC-00011826

From: Bertha Keogh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bertha Keogh
12114 Brookside Ave
Port Charlotte, FL 33981-6727
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bertha Keogh



MTC-00011827

From: David Carr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
David Carr
2700 Kent Avenue
West Lafayette, IN 47906
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial was a tremendous waste of taxpayer money and 
a impediment to the development of the computer technology sector of 
the American economy.
    It is time to let the companies innovate and develop new 
products to meet peoples' needs.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Carr



MTC-00011828

From: Janet Kirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Kirk
2589 Washington Rd.
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Janet F. Kirk



MTC-00011829

From: Gary McVey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary McVey
10715 Hillview Dr.
Evansville, IN 47720
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gary P. McVey



MTC-00011830

From: Greg OLSEN
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg OLSEN
9415 Friendsville Road
Seville, OH 44273-9121
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 


[[Page 25505]]


wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. 
Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Greg OLSEN



MTC-00011831

From: Joanne Ames
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joanne Ames
R.R.#2 Box 515
Gillett, PA 16925
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joanne Ames



MTC-00011832

From: Wayne Mieth
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wayne Mieth
1050 Merritt Lane
El Cajon, CA 92020
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Mieth



MTC-00011833

From: Kathy Casteel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathy Casteel
4502 State Road E
Auxvasse, MO 65231
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kathy Casteel



MTC-00011834

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Government Persons
    My comments on the Microsoft Settlement issue is, I'm afraid, 
only pointing out the obvious, however, the fact that the issue is 
still in doubt suggests my views should be expressed.
    I own no Microsoft stock and don't work for microsoft. I have no 
close friends or relations that work for microsoft. I am using an 
apple Computer to send this through AOL Internet access. I do use 
Microsoft programs.
    The fact that two of the states not accepting the settlement are 
California and Massachusetts seems to, in itself, show why the issue 
is purely political. These two states alone contain many major 
Microsoft competitors who have lost business because Microsoft was 
just better than they were. Success in our economy should be based 
on free market, not on government decree. Microsoft's products have 
been better accepted by the free market. Bundled products are indeed 
better than a bunch of incompatible products. Apple, Linix, Unix, 
etc.s systems are there as options but more people freely choose 
Microsoft.
    Gerald Steele
    506 Susana Ave.
    Redondo Beach Ca.
    90277



MTC-00011835

From: Paul Burke
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Burke
5569 Turnbull Circle
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into 


[[Page 25506]]


the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Burke



MTC-00011836

From: Sandra Weber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Weber
148 Main St.
Sullivan, WI 53178
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra Weber



MTC-00011837

From: Charles Guest
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Guest
1506 Clarence
Bossier, La 71111
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Guest



MTC-00011838

From: Nathan Leon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nathan Leon
2905 Colorado Ave
Turlock, CA 95382
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Leon



MTC-00011839

From: Craig Balter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Balter
220 Chapman
Placentia, Ca 92870
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Balter



MTC-00011840

From: Charles Fisher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Fisher
7307 N. 13th. St.
Tampa, Fl 33604
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken 


[[Page 25506]]


up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Fisher



MTC-00011841

From: Edward Poole
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Poole
29 River Bend Park
Lancaster, Pa 17602
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Edward H Poole



MTC-00011842

From: Rex Maxey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Maxey
3171 Highway 946
Ezel, KY 41425
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rex Maxey



MTC-00011843

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is fair & in the best interests of 
the country. All of the remaining state sponsored law suits should 
be dropped. It is bad for Microsoft & the USA for them to continue.
    R. Di Benedetto



MTC-00011844

From: Dale Best
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale Best
4156 Ridgeway Drive
Indianapolis, IN 46221-3442
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Best



MTC-00011845

From: Joe Orlick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Orlick
3406A S. Brust Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Orlick



MTC-00011846

From: Keith Fouts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Fouts
108 N Parkview
Coffeyville, KS 67337-1237
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division



[[Page 25508]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Keith A. Fouts



MTC-00011848

From: N broidy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
N Broidy
1621 114th
Bellevue, WA 98004
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Neal A. Broidy



MTC-00011849

From: Geof Foster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the proposed settlement, which in my opinion is 
indeed in the public interest. Furthermore, I commend Microsoft for 
all that it has done in providing world leadership for this 
technology and for essentially creating a world wide standard (or 
highway on which every one can drive) on which we are all able to 
communicate so effectively.This is very much different than when 
microprocessors were commercialized where one companies system could 
not communicate with other companies systems causing enormous cost 
and inefficiencies and the loss of US technological leadership.
    Microsoft's world leadership has financially benefited the 
United States and all of its citizens to a far greater degree than 
the so called costs outlined by its competitors in the lawsuit.
    Lets stop litigating and recommence innovation and advance the 
US leadership and dominance of technologies.
    Sincerely,
    Geoffrey M. Foster.



MTC-00011850

From: Eugene Denbow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene Denbow
8739 Amador Ave
Yucca Valley, Ca 92283
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene & Dorothy Denbow



MTC-00011851

From: Cameron Davis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cameron Davis
123 South Garfield
Junction City, KS 66441
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Cameron E. Davis



MTC-00011852

From: David Mackey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Mackey
1205 North 57th Place
Fort Smith, AR 72904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken 


[[Page 25509]]


up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Mackey



MTC-00011853

From: Carol Benton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Benton
619 S. Sunshine Ave.
El Cajon, CA 92020-5126
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Benton



MTC-00011854

From: Athena Reizakis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Athena Reizakis
1920 L St NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Athena Reizakis



MTC-00011855

From: Donald Shaw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Shaw
10816 LaQuinta Dr.
New Port Richey, Fl 34654
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,--Don
    Donald W. Shaw



MTC-00011856

From: Keith Farthing
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Farthing
1343 Wyoming St
Dayton, OH 45410
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Keith E Farthing



MTC-00011857

From: Marsha McIntosh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marsha McIntosh
7330 Bock Ave
Stanton, CA 90680-2117
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.


[[Page 25510]]



    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marsha McIntosh



MTC-00011858

From: William Wright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Wright
2509 Thomas Lane
Harlingen, TX 78550
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William Wright



MTC-00011859

From: Fredda Shutes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fredda Shutes
2117 Island Lake Cr.
Panama City, FL 32405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Fredda B. Shutes



MTC-00011860

From: Demetris Papageorgiou
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Demetris Papageorgiou
4739 Yuma Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the 


[[Page 25511]]


courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Demetris Papageorgiou



MTC-00011861

From: karen richards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Richards
9036 Tarrington Ln
Franklin, TN 37029
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Richards



MTC-00011862

From: Marla Lewis Oliver
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marla Lewis Oliver
561 Tuscany Valley Court, Unit 3
Crestview Hills, KY 41017
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marla Lewis Oliver



MTC-00011863

From: David Fedders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Fedders
5106 carpenter drive
crestwood, ky 40014
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David G. Fedders



MTC-00011864

From: Alissa Jesle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alissa Jesle
1911 Camino De La Costa, #402
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alissa Jesle



MTC-00011865

From: Theodore E. Caldwell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore E. Caldwell
1129 Blackburn Ln
Virginia Beach, VA 23454-1941
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore E. Caldwell



MTC-00011866

From: Patrick Heslin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Heslin
2009 Meadow lark Rd
Spring Hill , FL 34608
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Heslin



MTC-00011867

From: Robert Montgomery
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Montgomery
PO Box 1561
Charlottesville, VA 22902-1561
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be 


[[Page 25512]]


over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert D. Montgomery II



MTC-00011868

From: Carole Sigtermans
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carole Sigtermans
105 Schrempp Lane Ext.
Pine Bush, NY 12566
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carole Sigtermans



MTC-00011869

From: Mario Villanueva
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mario Villanueva
1529 Lassen Way
Frazier Park, Ca 93222-5323
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mario M. Villanueva



MTC-00011870

From: Rebecca Groves
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rebecca Groves
7506 STONE PINE LANE
HOUSTON, TX 77041-1527
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rebecca Groves



MTC-00011871

From: Gail Waechter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gail Waechter
5768 US Hwy 77A North
Yoakum, TX 77995-2431
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tim & Gail Waechter



MTC-00011872

From: George Humberson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Humberson
12722 Newbrook
Houston, TX 77072-3815
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the 


[[Page 25513]]


wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    G. Hollis Humberson



MTC-00011873

From: Sheron Willingham
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--
Sheron Willingham
P. O. Box 3430
Pahrump, NV 89041-3430
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered too much of our taxpayers? 
dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to 
investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, 
and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers 
will indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the 
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sheron M. Willingham



MTC-00011874

From: Tina Miltner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tina Miltner
700 Airport Blvd. #300
Burlingame, CA 94010-1937
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tina Miltner



MTC-00011875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:07pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dear sirs. . I feel it is time for the doJ to settle the 
MicroSoft case.Bob
    Fitzsimmons



MTC-00011876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The monopoly laws state that harm to the consumer must be 
proven. With all that I have read and drawing from my personal 
experience (6 years as a CTO), this was NOT proven. The only ones 
complaining about Microsoft are those that Microsoft leapfrogged 
(not always technologically, but always in mind/market share).
    If Microsoft really did use bully-boy tactics in the licensing 
practices, I believe they deserve to be slapped down big time. This 
in no way implies that the federal government should be overseeing 
Microsoft or any other area as to product development, R&D, etc.
    Apply appropriate measures for anything illegal Microsoft may 
have done, but do not punish the rest of the computing world in the 
same stroke.



MTC-00011877

From: Stan Casteel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stan Casteel
4502 State Road E
Auxvasse, MO 65231
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    I would add that many of us don't appreciate the fact that 
because most of our 403b accounts contain microsoft, we are being 
robbed of our retirement by the trial lawyers. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Stan W. Casteel, DVM, PhD



MTC-00011878

From: Marco DiBiase
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:13pm
Subject: comments
    Bill Gatres mistake was in not making contributions to the 
Democrats and Clinton. Therefore, they unleashed the Justice Dept on 
them. This provides work for the lawyers. The customers get screwed 
because the cost of litigation has to be reflected in the price of 
the products. This was a politically motivated suit. Throw it out 
and move on! Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg!
    [email protected]



MTC-00011879

From: Bryce Buchanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Justice Department
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    We are writing to let you know that we are strongly in favor of 
Microsofts position on the proposed antitrust settlement. It is in 
the 


[[Page 25514]]


best interest of the country and the economy to resolve this 
matter now.
    The action of some of the state Attorneys General have resembled 
extortion much more than they resemble a reasonable approach to the 
issue.
    The more the government throttles the rapidly changing high-tech 
industries the worse it will be for everyone.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Bryce Buchanan
    Diana Buchanan
    18962 Barton Road
    Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034



MTC-00011880

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:15pm
Subject: Settlement of suit
    It is about time this suit was settled. I sincerely hope 
Microsoft will continue to provide the best as it always has in the 
past.
    Attorney General Blumenthal must cast away his bitterness and 
join in supporting the settlement that has been proposed.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Stauffer



MTC-00011881

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that common sense and reason are used here. The 
settlement should be accepted and let the free market do its job. 
This trial has been counter productive against the interestes of 
anyone with a computer.
    Sincerly,
    John Davis
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011882

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has contributed significantly to the increase in 
productivity enjoyed the world over. That said the only way 
Microsoft can continue to grow is through planned operating system 
obsilecence and the canibalization of niche software applications.
    Microsoft is doing both. It's time to extract the operating 
system/business from Microsoft and force it to stand on its own. 
Publish the source code of all Windows X O/S's. Therefore providing 
open competition and equal access to the latest planned feature 
enhancements of Windows X O/S.
    Forcing Microsoft to donate $1B worth of WinTel product only 
further cements Microsofts' grip on the US economy and the minds of 
our children. If you plan to penalize Microsoft financially--get 
cash from Microsoft with no strings attached. Invest the money in 
business development within the affected states.
    However, if the states are not willing to force the separation 
of Microsofts' O/S and application business. It's obvious that they 
are just in it for a quick revenue hit. Just like the smoking 
settlement. What ever the outcome, the buyer of Microsoft products 
is sure to eat the cost of litigation and settlement.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011883

From: Ronald Soussa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the terms of the proposed Microsoft settlement 
are in the public's interest and should be approved. Get on with the 
settlement and end the litigation.
    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-00011884

From: Elaine Rearden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    This case should be settled as quickly as possible. . . it's a 
diversion to the day by day work and innovation of Microsoft and is 
adverse to the well-being of customers who use computers and 
computer products. I urge you to get it behind you and get on with 
the bright future we have with regard to computer technology.
    Elaine Rearden



MTC-00011885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:18pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Please end the litigation against Microsoft. It's been long 
enough and I believe that justice has prevailed. Thank you.
    MWeber



MTC-00011886

From: rfdpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have no complaints against Microsoft and I feel their proposed 
settlement was more than fair and should be accepted.
    Richard F Donovan
    Columbia SC



MTC-00011887

From: chuckbeatie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, leave Microsoft alone, and let them get back to 
business! Tell those states and the companies that are crying, that 
if Microsoft's competition want to catch-up and get ahead that they 
need to spend their time writing better code, not crying about how 
Microsoft is cornering the market.
    This is a free society, and Microsoft's competition can get in 
there and compete, quit the crying!
    Chuck



MTC-00011888

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am extremely interested in having the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft resolved immediately. It appears to me that the main 
impetus for this whole matter is based on politics rather than 
market dynamics.
    Specifically, the states that seem to be resisting settlement 
are ones who host some of Microsoft's main competitors. While I 
believe that Microsoft has indeed engaged in anti-competitive acts, 
namely in the area of restrictive licensing agreements, I fail to 
see how Microsoft is a monopoly. The public has always had other 
options regarding personal computer operating systems in the form of 
SCO Xenix, SCO Unix, MacOS, Geos, and Linux. All of these are viable 
operating systems. Microsoft should be rewarded for providing the 
product that the vast majority of users want to use, not punished 
for it. No one is forced to use Microsoft products. The market has 
spoken and it has chosen Microsoft Windows. It seems that the bulk 
of the anti-trust case is sour grapes of Microsoft's competitors.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011889

From: Charles Chambers Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    when will the government get out of the way and let tech 
companies innovate? I am for the settlement as it now exists. The 
governments actions to date in perusing this case against Microsoft 
has just added to the collapse in the economy. It will be technology 
that will bring us out of the poor economy if the government will 
just settle this case.
    Charles R. Chambers, Sr.



MTC-00011890

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Lawyers:
    Please accept the present offer to settle this and lets get the 
markets going in a positive direction. We feel that without an 
immediate settlement the markets will go further down and the 
recession will last longer.
    Sincerely Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Pearce
    5404 Via Maria,
    Yorba Linda, Ca
    92886
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00011891

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:26pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    WE URGE THE US DOJ TO RESOLVE THIS CASE AGAINST MICROSOFT AND 
GET ON WITH THE MORE SERIOUS MATTERS SUCH AS ENRON. AT NO TIME AND 
IN NO WAY HAS MICROSOFT CREATED PROBLEMS FOR THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY. 
WITHOUT MICROSOFT, WHERE WOULD THE INDUSTRY BE? INSTEAD OF 
PENALIZING A FORWARD THINKING, CREATIVE COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT, 
ENCOURAGE THEIR COMPETENCE! AS


[[Page 25515]]


USERS, WE FEEL THEIR PRODUCTS TO BE 
SUPERIOR IN EVERY WAY----THIS KIND OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE REWARDED, 
NOT HARASSED. SO, WE REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER BE RESOLVED QUICKLY 
AND FINALLY AND LET MICROSOFT DO WHAT IS DOES BEST AND LET THE DOJ 
DO WHAT IT DOES BEST AND THAT IS TO GO AFTER REALLY ABUSIVE 
COMPANIES LIKE ENRON. BEVERLY AND DALE SCHENDEL



MTC-00011892

From: Ruth Silveira
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:24pm
Subject: Back Off
    Finally they think they have justly done what they set out to 
do. God knows why this was an issue anyway!
    Aren't we living in a free country where inventors of all 
shapes, sizes, inventions et. make millions every year? We even have 
foreign inventors putting their ideas on our consumers.
    It seems to me that we could have spent all this time looking 
for aliens and the money would have been better spent.
    re: The WTC bombing.
    Get real go after the bad guys not an American who happened to 
enter the market at the right time!
    BACK OFF LEAVE MICROSOFT AND BILL GATES ALONE!!!
    If it weren't for Microsoft I never would have been able to 
learn my computer by myself and send this e-mail!
    Thanks,
    Ruth Silveira



MTC-00011893

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:28pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Settle the matter and stop further waste of money. . . .
    GS



MTC-00011894

From: Bud Howe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my firm opinion that the US Gov't should accept Judge T. 
P. Jackson's ruling in this case in regard to the education 
donations. Further suit against Microsoft is counter productive to 
the best interests of the people of the USA & the software using 
world at large. Rejection of this proposed settlement is not in my 
opinion in the best interest of the software world.
    Thank you for reconsideration of this matter,
    Allen C. Howe II



MTC-00011895

From: Elwin, Michael J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The initial settlement that Microsoft made for the schools is 
very fair. Alot of those schools have Black students attending and 
they have no computers or what they have are very old. As a Black 
man from the West Indies living in the United States since 1968 I am 
fully aware of what is going on. The administrators in those schools 
rejecting the offer just want the money to spend on other things 
that will NOT help the students. Also the Apple Computer Company 
which has a strong monopoly in the public schools is part of the 
rejection process. For once can we stop playing games and do what is 
BEST for the students/children. Microsoft is not ripping off the 
consumer. I know because I am a consumer of their products. Stop 
playing around and let Microsoft help turn the economy around. 
Thanks for listening.
    Best regards,
    Michael J Elwin
    Import/Export Compliance
    Worldwide Site Operations
    Phone:425-957-5729 Fax 425-865-4305
    Pager:206-797-0694
    M/S 7M-TJ ``Apres Bon Dieu C'est La Terre''Commonwealth of 
Dominica.



MTC-00011896

From: Martin Schentes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:33pm
Subject: Settlement
    I would like to see this case settled as quickly as possible. It 
is taking up too musch of the Justice Department's resources for 
what appears to be a dubious outcome that will benefit no one. The 
Justice Department could then have time for the real criminals at 
Enron.
    Martin Schentes
    1672 Applefield St
    Thousand Oaks, CA 91320



MTC-00011897

From: Judi Gibbons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Lawsuit
    STOP THE LAWSUIT, SETTLE THE ACTION AS PER THE LAST COURT AND 
GET ON WITH LIFE.



MTC-00011898

From: Gerald W. Cusack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--DOJ
    Dear Sir:
    It is time for these nine state Attorney Generals to agree with 
the DOJ. Further confusion, and litigation only adds to an unsettled 
business climate and to our current recession. The fact that the 
federal government and the other states thought it fair should be 
enough. Stop the politics and get the issue resolved. People need 
jobs.
    Mary and Gerald Cusack



MTC-00011899

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:34pm
Subject: (no subject)
    It is time to get on with normal activiies in the new computer 
world. Things have changed and we can no longer judge todays 
business with the conditions of the past.
    The proposed settlement between the plaintif and microsoft is a 
fair one and the government should embrace it and move out of the 
way.
    This segment of the business world is fast and changing.
    Move On



MTC-00011900

From: kay in arizona
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We do not understand why the government hasn't put a stop to 
this suit. There has been thousands of dollars spent on ligitation 
by both parties.
    The government is spending our tax money to sue one of the most 
successful companies in our nation, who has contributed so much to 
the economy here. The suit is based on other technology companies 
who are unhappy with the success of Microsoft. .
    We are involved in a manufacturing business and we do not 
devulge how our product is manufactured, allowing other companies to 
make the same thing.
    Please allow Microsoft to be the inovative company they have 
always been.
    Thank you.
    Howard & Kay Worden



MTC-00011901

From: Carolyn Emery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of United States citizens 
to accept the Microsoft Settlement as outlined by the Department of 
Justice.
    Carolyn Jill Emery
    1124 Garden Circle
    Fircrest, WA 98466



MTC-00011902

From: Gary Rosen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    For your information I just received the following email from 
ACT. I am sure that Microsoft is funding ACT. As a small software 
company who has worked closely with Microsoft and as a consumer in 
my opinion Microsoft has been guilty of any number of illegal 
activities related to p[rice fixing and illegal trade practices.
    Gary Rosen
    It's time to get back to work: Your comments can encourage 
approval of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case.
    Your opinion on the proposed settlement between Microsoft, the 
federal government, and nine states is due by January 28, 2002.
    Click here to find out more!
    http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp>
    http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp
    Under the Tunney Act, a law that encourages public comment on a 
proposed settlement, the trial judge reviews comments to help 
determine whether this settlement is in the public interest. All 
comments submitted will become part of the public record.


[[Page 25516]]



    Helpful information for developing your comments:
    http://www.actonline.org/press--room/releases/110501.asp> ACT's 
analysis of the proposed settlement
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm#submit> Information 
from the U.S. Department of Justice
    http://www.actonline.org/press--room/releases/
Senate%20testimony.pdf> ACT's testimony to U.S. Senate
    Three ways to submit your comments to Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly:
    1. Send a fax to: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
    2. Mail a letter. Please note, however, that the Justice 
Department strongly encourages that comments be submitted via e-mail 
or fax, given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington. 
Letter mail should be addressed to:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D. Street NW. Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    3. Send an email. If you send the email on your own, please 
address to mailto:[email protected] and use ``Microsoft 
Settlement'' as your subject line. Or, see
    http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp>
    http://www.actonline.org/action/settlement.asp for on-line form 
to send your email.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan Zuck
    President
    ACT



MTC-00011903

From: Richard Lowenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge in Microsoft Monoply Suit:
    Sir: I am just sharing the thoughts of a very senior citizen.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Lowenthal
Date: Mon,  14 Jan 2002 14:15:50-0500
From: Richard Blumenthal [email protected]> X-Accept-
Language: en
To: Richard Lowenthal [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft, the monopolist
    Richard Lowenthal wrote:
    Honorable Gentlemen,
    I wish to indicate my support for your position in the case of 
Microsoft, the Monopolist. I truly feel, as a very senior citizen, 
that I have been taken advantage of, many times because of 
Microsoft' position. I have been forced to buy version upgrades, at 
exhorbitant prices, when the ``upgrade'' is little more than a 
``beta'' version given out to the public for money, and it is the 
public's job to find the glitches and notify Microsoft so they can 
make changes and sell another upgrade. In reality, they should have 
been doing the research and after getting a good product, then 
making it available to the public.
    How can any of the other Attorneys General resolve this case 
when Microsoft is a convicted monopolist? It is my hope that you 
will see this case through the courts until justice is done and a 
suitable is resolution is found in the courts. I want all to be 
equal. I just do not want Microsoft to be MORE EQUAL THAN ANYONE 
ELSE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
    CORDIALLY,
    Richard Lowenthal
    Frankfort, MI.
    Dear Mr. Lowenthal:
    Thank you for your recent thoughtful correspondence concerning 
the Microsoft antitrust case. As you know, on November 6, 2001, the 
United States Department of Justice and Microsoft filed a proposed 
settlement. I did not join that settlement because I do not believe 
it would accomplish the goals we set when we filed the case. Nor 
would it accomplish the remedial goals set by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals: (1) to prohibit the illegal conduct and similar conduct in 
the future, (2) to spark competition in this industry; and (3) to 
deprive Microsoft of its illegal gains.
    You may also express your opinion to the judge of the federal 
trial court considering this settlement by filing written comments 
with the United States Department of Justice by January 28, 2002, as 
follows:
    Mail: Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, DC, and 
current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely mail 
service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that comments 
be submitted via e-mail or fax.]
    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
    Please keep me informed of your opinions on the case.
    Thank you again for contacting me.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Blumenthal
    Attorney General



MTC-00011904

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft case should be settled
    Dept. of Justice . In my opinion the Microsoft case should be 
settled asap. C0mpetitors seem to be draging it out to their 
addvantage. The longer it goes the more it hurts the economy. Please 
settle!
    Jim Nieukirk.
    [email protected]>



MTC-00011905

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:43pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    it is blantantly obvious that this suit should end now. the nine 
attorney's general, who are holding out, are only doing this to 
force an extreme payoff. one, that i feel they have absolutey no 
right to expect. ending this travesty now would help the markets to 
go forward.
    thank you,
    jayne mcgarey
    chattanooga, tn.



MTC-00011906

From: cmendenhall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a longtime user of Microsoft products beginning with the 
early dos program on the Radio Shack TRSDOS machines available 
before the floppy was perfected, I feel strongly that the government 
should settle the matter with and disallow the continuing harassment 
of rogue states. It is obvious that these states want to continue to 
keep the computer business environment in a state of upset. Lets 
settle the thing and get on with things.
    C Mendenhall



MTC-00011907

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:42pm
Subject: Put an end to the litigating
    Why are we trying to ruin a company just because they happen to 
excel? I think the all the states should join in the settlement and 
lets move forward. Hasn't Microsoft been penalized enough? Do we 
want to crush them entirely? Where would our economy be without the 
vision of Microsoft?
    Let's settle and move on.
    Lois Teerling
    Concerned consumer



MTC-00011908

From: sandra willis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not believe our government is still trying to 'punish' 
Bill Gates and his company. The man has given more to charity than 
all the politicians I've ever heard of, combined. He wants to Give 
to so many schools now, I'm sorry, I just have no patience with the 
ignorance of our government.



MTC-00011909

From: Sandra Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    It is time this Microsoft Antitrust suit is settled. As part of 
the general public I feel that it has taken up enough time and we 
should get on with other items that need work done on them. Believe 
me there is eonugh to keep your Department busy.
    As a customer I did not believe that the antitrust suit should 
have ever happened. Microsoft provided it customers with a great 
product at fair value. It is my understanding that the general 
public did not believe in this antitrust suit and that it was done 
solely to benefit some Millionaires who could not keep up with 
Microsoft.
    Please add my opinion that it is time to get this settled and 
move on.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra Kaye Bailey


[[Page 25517]]




MTC-00011910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:47pm
Subject: (no subject)
    As a shareholder of Microsoft and an avid user of Microsoft 
products I would like to see that the case be settled as quickly as 
possible. For the sake of the faltering economy I can see no reason 
to prolong litigation, stifle essential technological progress and 
handcuff an industry which the world relies upon. A reasonable 
solution to the perceived problems that Microsoft had caused in the 
past has already been reached. . . let's get on wifh it.
    Enough is enough!!
    Alice Petko



MTC-00011911

From: Steve Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The case should be settled now!
    The Bryant Design Group & Steve Bryant Const.
    P. O. Box 502
    Denison, Texas 75021
    http://house-plans-and-more.com>



MTC-00011912

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The proposed settlement of the DOJ case against Microsoft should 
be accepted by all parties. The benefits accrued by the public as a 
result of Microsoft software integration far exceeds any problems 
that may have resulted from Microsoft actions. The actions taken 
against Microsoft appear to be largely based on the fact that other 
companies could not compete effectively with products that were 
provided by Microsoft. Actions taken against Microsoft to date 
appear to be far more concerned with the perceived harm of a few 
large companies than on any harm caused to the public. In fact, the 
public has significantly benefited from the actions of Microsoft 
through the availability of integrated software application programs 
at a reasonable cost.
    Please accept the Microsoft/DOJ proposed settlement without 
further delay.
    Leo Hansen



MTC-00011913

From: H Tavassolie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    I would like the Department of justice settle the current 
agreement ,and not to drug on this conflict for the sake of a few 
unhappy states,since we as a majority of united state citizens 
believe that continuation of this conflict is against the public 
interest.
    Sincerely.



MTC-00011914

From: Ron Merchant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:51pm
Subject: Settle the Case
    It is imperative that the case against Microsoft be settled 
within the framework of the DOJ guidelines. It is apparent that the 
nine states are not interested in the economy, shareholders, or the 
utilization of governmental resources, paid for by taxpayers, that 
would be far better utilized in other venues.
    Settle
    this now.
    Ron Merchant



MTC-00011915

From: Ronald S. Frantz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    As a consumer of Microsoft products, I believe that all actions 
against the company should be settled as expeditiously as possible.
    I have not been harmed by the company in any way.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald S. Frantz
    872 Porterville Road
    East Aurora, New :York 14052



MTC-00011916

From: Rick Lauder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft do it's business! It is helping to shape the 
world.



MTC-00011917

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case is a ridiculous. Microsoft's so called monopoly is 
based on technical merits not market manipulation. Without 
Microsoft's vision and highly integrated products the whole computer 
revolution would not have happened.
    Give them a break--too many of us owe our livelyhoods to them.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011918

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to bring all litigation against Microsoft to an end 
without any further legal proceedings. The courts have ruled in the 
case against Microsoft and that ruling should stand. Our tax 
dollars, the time of the courts and the U. S. economy can all be 
best served by putting this matter behind us. As a user of 
Microsoft's software I have never felt that I was being forced to 
deal with a monopolist, overcharged for the products I bought or 
deprived of the opportunity to purchase something better because 
Microsoft had stifled innovation by others.
    Sincerely
    John A. Meintjes.



MTC-00011919

From: john hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:58pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I own no Microsoft stock. I get upset with Microsoft at times 
just as many others do, but this settlement should not be 
overturned.
    First, I believe the intrusions of politically driven solutions 
into settlements other than those of typical ``case law'' suits, ie. 
land problems, immigration, the right of political entities the 
right to and necessity of taxation as examples will diminish clarity 
within the courts. Second, I feel an overturn will continue to 
punish the concept of commercial knowledge ownership and that has 
great peril for innovation and advancement into the technical future 
of our nation.
    Thank you
    John Hickman
    2266 E. Montrose Canyon Drive
    Tucson, Az. 85737



MTC-00011920

From: Cynthia Olson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Speaking as a stockholder of Microsoft and middleclass American 
worker--- Teacher--- I have been dumbfounded about the course of 
this procedure--- Please settle this case in favor of Microsoft--- 
let innovation ,of all kinds, have the freedom it deserves to create 
advances in technology. Thank you,
    Cynthia Olson



MTC-00011921

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For me personally as a Internet Software product manager, it 
would be better that Microsoft WAS a monopoly. That way, I do not 
have to insure that my products run in Netscape on Unix Clients and 
I do not have to worry about J2EE zelots insisting that I rewrite my 
products to suit their IT knowledge base. The weeker you make 
Microsoft, the harder my job is. :)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011922

From: Lynn Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I was very disappointed when I first heard the results of the 
settlement that the DOJ agreed to with regard to the Microsoft 
Antitrust case, because I believe that it does not really prevent 
Microsoft from continuing in the same unethical business practices 
that they have been found to have engaged in for years. I was 
likewise very pleased that at least nine of the states did not agree 
and continued to push for a settlement that, in my opinion, would 
more appropriately fit the charges for which Microsoft was found 
guilty.
    I am a Software Developer in the Internet industry. At first, I 
was not in favor of the Anti-trust suit at all, feeling that 
Microsoft (or any successful company) shouldn't be punished for 
being successful. But even when I felt that way, I still believed 
that they 


[[Page 25518]]


engaged in unethical business practices regarding dealing 
with OEM's, etc. And for that I believed they should be tried and if 
found guilty punished in enough of a way that it would stop them 
from doing it in the future.
    However, as I've studied both sides of the issues I have 
concluded that it isn't in the best interest of the people of the 
United States for Microsoft to continue to be allowed to maintain 
it's monopoly hold. Microsoft's patterns of behavior ultimately harm 
the consumer because they stifle competition from those who might 
otherwise make more reliable, quality products. Microsoft hasn't 
ceased in these harmful behaviors even when under the threat of the 
Anti-trust lawsuit. I do not believe they will change these patterns 
without a much stricter settlement that FORCES them to do so.
    I hope you will find that the Proposed Final Judgement is NOT in 
the best interest of the people and will give more consideration to 
the settlement proposed by the remaining nine states. In fact, in 
many ways I think that Microsoft gets off so easy in the Proposed 
Final Judgement that they make the DOJ look like a JOKE because 
Microsoft's legal team out smarted them. Microsoft barely get's a 
slap on the wrist, they get to continue to use the same unfair 
business practices they always have, and they even gain some 
protection for their bad practices.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Lynn Walton
    Director of Internet Services Franklin University
    (These views do not necessarily represent those of my employer.)



MTC-00011923

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly,
    I am an IT Professional (Vice President of Product Development) 
at CacheFlow--an Internet infrastructure company not affiliated with 
Microsoft.
    After reviewing the documents published by DOJ on the matter of 
the ``Microsoft Settlement'' as well as arguments pro and con from 
supporters/opponents, it is my belief that this settlement reaches a 
good balance of keeping Microsoft ``in line'' regarding their 
business practices without imposing undue restraint to hinder 
innovation from Microsoft or any other technology company. I also 
find the punitive measures sufficient and simple.
    I hope you will find the settlement satisfactory and not give in 
to critics whose sole purpose is to keep the case unsettled and in 
some cases, extort financial or competitive gain from delaying the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Murat Divringi
    Vice President of Product Development
    CacheFlow Inc.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011924

From: Joy Ulskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen I want to see the Microsoft case settled. 
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 I'm 
sure was tough, but seems reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved.
    Consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, 
the industry and the American economy. The last thing the American 
economy needs is more litigation that benefits only a few wealthy 
competitors and lawyers and stifles innovation. Don't let these 
special interests defeat the public interest. Settle now so we, The 
United States, can move on. Haven't we endured enough setbacks with 
Sept 11th?
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011925

From: Dennis Battrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I really think that it's time for you folks to settle this 
issue. We've forgotten what the issue was anyway so now you all look 
like even bigger money wasting fools. As a consumer, I was never 
convinced that this was ever anything more than a money grab by 
certain influential individuals who were unable to design and 
produce software that anyone wanted. Have you noticed that nothing 
really new has been produced lately? Let the market take care of 
itself and quit trying to protect your special interests under the 
guise of ``protecting the public from the big bad corporation''. 
Enough is enough!
    Sincerely,
    Dennis T. Battrick



MTC-00011926

From: Alex Ray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Ray
31830 Bittorf Lane
Cordova, MD 21625
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    First the Clinton Justice Department and now President Bush's 
legal beagles are trying to damage the one company that is directly 
responsible for this nation's economic boom in the 90's and our 
world leadership in technology.
    Fine them if they broke the law, but get on with it. No company 
should endure the hoops that Justice Department forced on Microsoft.
    I thought this Administration supported entrepreneurship, no 
matter how tough one of the competitors might be.
    Sincerely,
    Alex Ray



MTC-00011927

From: Cheryl Shirk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cheryl Shirk
2420 Rollins Ave.
Panama City, FL 32405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl L. Shirk



MTC-00011928

From: Erika Gifford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Erika Gifford
14431 Greencastle Dr #10
Chesterfield, MO 63017
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better 


[[Page 25519]]


products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Erika T. Gifford



MTC-00011929

From: george m kousaleos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:03pm
Subject: [email protected]. January 15, 2002
    Dear Sir,
    I have very little to gain by a settlement, but I Had 800 shares 
of microsoft as the investment climbed in the past all of a sudden a 
fellow graduate SunMicrosystems convinced everybody he was the 
injured party. For 4 months I had stock in SunMicrosystems as 
recommended by JBOH. I held it and never made a trade. After 
transfer to First Union I still hadn't been able to trade for a 
profet it was only after Microsoft got in trouble, and long after I 
sold my shares in SunMicrosystems did SunMicrosysems stock move.
    After changing my account to Fidelity Instead of buying Intel I 
bought Microsoft and for two years Microsoft only did good for those 
of us investors.
    The courts made an unfavorable ruling and the entire USA and 
world economy has been suffering. People like me that have a stock 
that's climbing invest in other stocks by margin spending.
    I can tell you from experience that when Microsoft dropped I 
could no longer acquire stocks that I was investing in because my 
portfolio didn't have any winners left.
    I don't even have 50 shares of Microsoft.
    I have 300 Ford
    ``````Juniper
    I ``300 Xerox
    I hope Microsoft can reclaim their leadership. I wish I could be 
rich or at least get some shares on margin.
    Last year I had 540,000 shares of a certain stock which reverse 
split 1:50 and then 1:40 leaving me with 450 shares
    I sold 400 shares for $4000. which I also lost .
    People Like Bill Gates I liked spending the money he was making 
me. I would like to do it over and be a soft spoken and generous as 
he is generous. I would like to have confidence that can make a man 
so soft spoken.
    I hope this letter affirms that I want the market to go up, not 
down, and Bill Gates and company are past and have the potential to 
be future leaders. All businesses have like sports have outstanding 
contributors. Microsoft is one company even my parents liked and 
encouraged my owning stocks.
    With Respest,
    George M. Kousaleos
    P.S. I do not own any Microsoft today but I would risk some 
money if the economy picks me up.



MTC-00011930

From: Larry Gribble
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Gribble
11408 W 112thTerr
Overland Park,, KS 66210
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Gribble



MTC-00011931

From: Timothy Aden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Aden
21289 Iverson Avenue North
Forest Lake, MN 55025-7902
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Aden



MTC-00011932

From: Earl H. Conrad
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Earl H. Conrad
720 West Main Street
Waynesboro, Pa 17268
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Earl H. Conrad



MTC-00011933

From: Dianna Gibson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dianna Gibson
7000 E. 47th Avenue Drive, Suite 100
Denver, Co 80216
January 15, 2002


[[Page 25520]]



Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dianna S. Gibson



MTC-00011934

From: Myron Schreiner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Myron Schreiner
215 Belmont Dr
Reeds Spring, MO 65737
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Myron M Schreiner



MTC-00011935

From: Barbara Wiot
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Wiot
1001 Main Street
Cincinnati, oh 45202
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Wiot



MTC-00011936

From: Sharon Robie
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Robie
1986 Pickering Trail
Lancaster, PA 17601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Robie



MTC-00011937

From: Kris Pitcairn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kris Pitcairn
po box 233
Bryn Athyn, PA 19009-0233
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kris H. Pitcairn



MTC-00011938

From: CHRISTINE WILLHAUCK
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CHRISTINE WILLHAUCK
PO. BOX 1100 PMB 277


[[Page 25521]]


GASTONIA, NC 28053-1100
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    CHRISTINE L. WILLHAUCK



MTC-00011939

From: Carol Bourgeois
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Bourgeois
4013 Manchaca Road #6
Austin, TX 78704
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial spent taxpayers' dollars wisely while 
creating cutting edge case law to govern the high tech industry. To 
place the burden of such a litigation onto smaller companies would 
have been a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial to be over, however, 
patience is a virtue, often forgotten in litigation.
    Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, guided 
by new and applicable interpretations of our precedential law, 
rather than flailing about in the courtroom, reinventing the wheel. 
And the consumers who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh 
of relief, with some reassurance that the expensive hunk of plastic 
on their desks will continue to function, however imperfectly.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. Of course, most of those 
Americans had absolutely no idea how much the Microsoft litigation 
benefitted them in terms of establishing the ground rules under 
which E-Commerce is conducted.
    Once the case is finally over, high tech companies can get into 
the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation with the 
3000 pound gorilla that is Microsoft.
    True competition means creating better goods and offering 
superior services to consumers. Microsoft can serve by example.
    Should our current government consider getting out of the 
business of stifling product litigation and tying the hands of 
consumers in pursuing their options- (ahem, ``tort reform'') 
American consumers will once again pick the winners and losers on 
Wall Street.
    With the benefits of the Microsoft litigation; a usable body of 
precedential law, the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be 
encouraged to return to creating new and competitive products and 
technologies like they did in the Clinton administration, rather 
than hoping they can buy access and favors. (Like Enron?)
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Bourgeois



MTC-00011940

From: Stu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this litigation immediately. Nine states wishing 
to continue litigation are not enough out of 50 states, to justify 
to continued the expense of litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Stuart B. Stephens, Jr.
    Stu Stephens, Assoc. Broker, CRS, ABR, GRI
    RE/MAX Island Properties
    PO Box 1449 or 199 Main St., Eastsound WA 98245
    800 551-1677, 360 376-2599; fax: 360 376-6211
    www.orcas-stephens.com>
    www.stu-patsy-stephens.com>
    www.orcasislandonline.com>
    mailto:[email protected]
    For a tour of Orcas, click www.visualtour.com/show.asp?T=12655>



MTC-00011941

From: William D Fowble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 15, 2002
    We have a free enterprise system in this Country. Perhaps it 
would be a monopoly for Microsoft to give it's products out in this 
settlement, BUT perhaps the 1 billion would allow disadvantaged 
schools to make a ``choice'', as to whose products they would prefer 
to use and renovating their license practices would be a plus. Not 
being a computer geek, I like using software from other companies, 
as well as the Microsoft products. It's pertinent for the Court to 
come up with a reasonable solution to this problem and ``Let's move 
on''!!! I think some people/States are playing ``hardball'' on this 
issue and ``milking the cow'' for all it's worth!! Let's not have 
happen in this settlement, like in the tobacco settlement, that the 
money/products from Microsoft gets short changed for the purpose for 
which it is intended.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Fowble
    Lynnwood, WA.



MTC-00011942

From: Patterons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:16pm
Subject: Ref;Micosoft Suit
    I personally feel that the Government should drop the whole 
thing as soon as possible, before the DOJ looks anymore foolish. I 
think that the ``Software'' companies that complained about 
Microsoft's supposed unfair practices used you folks at DOJ on a 
``witchhunt'' against Microsoft because these other ``Software'' 
Company's have inferior products and can't compete unless it crys to 
the DOJ that Microsoft isn't playing fair!!!!!! And then tangle 
everybody up in a asinine lawsuit. The ``States'' of course have to 
get on the band-wagon because they smell ``Big Cash Settlements''. 
So the States, who really don't give a real shit about they're 
consumers, are just in it to try and line their state coffers with 
Corporate money.(Just look at the Tobacco Suits, none to those 
settlements went to prevent or stop smoking, in most cases I read 
about it went to the ``States'' General funds. The Tobacco Companies 
paid out the money for the Anti-Smoking Ads.
    The States still want the TAX Money from the Tobacco.) So as 
usual its the American people who get screwed by this kind of B.S. 
Suit against a Company who just makes a better product. The DOJ 
could do us all a favor and try not to protect us so much. If there 
is a product out there that doesn't work or if we don't like it , 
guess what, we the consumer don't have to buy it!!!! Gee what a 
novel concept, I think its called Capitalism.
    So please stop wasting tax payers funds and go after some real 
criminals, maybe Terrorists Money Laundering Operations, Organized 
crime, etc. I'm sure these problems haven't gone away since DOJ 
devoted so much time to the Microsoft case.
    Thank you for your time.
    S.L.Patterson,
    Okanogan, WA.



MTC-00011943

From: Jane F Chi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please let Microsoft free because you didn't do any good for 
consumers!!!!!



MTC-00011944

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should have been settled long ago. It is wasting tax 
payers money. Microsoft, Intel and other technology companies are 
the architects of the Untied States current prosperity. We should be 


[[Page 25522]]


thanking them for making all of lives better than they would have 
been without them. Don't allow Microsoft's competitors to use our 
tax dollars for their benefit. Settle the case NOW!
    Richard J. Dux
    8509 Trumbull
    Skokie, IL 60076



MTC-00011945

From: Everett Snelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:10pm
    Gentlemen: The public does not want to hamper future innovation 
at Microsoft. Please settle this now!
    Everett Snelson



MTC-00011946

From: mark scheel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As private citizens and shareholders of Microsoft, we would like 
to state emphatically that we believe this matter should be settled 
now and all further litigation terminated. It's in the best 
interests of the country as a whole to move on. Thank you.
    Mark Scheel and Dee Snook



MTC-00011947

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Justice Dept.should take the necessary course 
of action to swiftly resolve the cases pending against Microsoft. 
Enough is Enough ! From my viewpoint the entire anti trust affair 
was instigated by Senators and Congressmen sympathetic to 
Micorsoft's competitors. These elected officials have just been 
carrrying on a vendetta for the companies that are in competition 
with Microsoft,with no regard for the consumer's interest. The 
competing software companies should expend their efforts towards 
making software that is competitive and usefull in the 
marketplace,instead of trying to stiffle software and systems that 
the public needs and desires.
    Lets get on with the future.
    Arlen Paranto
    P.O.Box 304
    Eatonville,Wash.98328



MTC-00011948

From: The Lamoses
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My vote is for Microsoft. This has always been a ridiculous 
battle between Microsoft's competitors and Microsoft, and a bunch of 
money-hungry politically-motivated Attorneys Generals. Shouldn't 
this be about consumers? How can anyone honestly say that consumers 
have been shafted or gotten a raw deal, from a company that 
practically invented personal computing, enabled the popularization 
of the Internet, and all of the benefits and wealth they have 
brought to this country?!
    My biggest concern is that you're not going to hear from the 
majority of the citizens, who are very happy and satisified with 
Microsoft and their contributions to the technology industry and 
this country's economy. Instead, you'll hear the beating of drums 
from their competitors (who have a accumulated and perfected their 
anti-Microsoft rhetoric producing machinery and anti-Microsoft 
lobbying tactics), and who stand to gain a lot from the debilitation 
of Microsoft. It's a sad day in America when competitors and AGs use 
the justice system to further their own agendas, instead of doing 
their jobs and allowing companies to compete in the open market.
    Thanks



MTC-00011949

From: Tom Freeman (Salt Lake City)
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not encourage you to pursue the private settlement proposed 
by Microsoft. It would, in my opinion, create even more of a 
monopoly than they already have. There has to be some cost to a 
company that has done what Microsoft has done. Justice. These 
opinions are my own and in no way reflect the position of my 
company.
    Thanks,
    Tom Freeman
    Citrix Systems, Inc.
    [email protected]
    801.816.3309



MTC-00011950

From: Jeff Gillings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have 15 years experience in software engineering and a B.S. in 
business. The Revised Final Judgement addresses a number of 
important points; good job on those.
    However, it does not address the following:
    1) Punishment to Microsoft for past monopolistic behavior, 
specifically, destroying Netscape.
    2) Microsoft predatory pricing. This should be a major piece of 
the settlement. After the development costs are paid for, sales of 
software are almost all profit; allowing Microsoft (or any company 
which can license software to hundreds of millions of customers) to 
reap huge profits. How are you going to keep microsoft from using 
that money to price competition out of the market.
    Microsoft has a strong history of this behavior; Internet 
Explorer was given away. I don't see anything in the Final Judgement 
that addresses this very important point.



MTC-00011951

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is convicted of having overcharged for a product which 
people bought of their own free will because it was better than any 
other. Now Microsoft has made a tremendously generous offer to give 
it away, but a judge says it isn't enough, and would help to 
popularize Microsoft products, which the public already prefer. The 
government seeks to discourage excellence, and condemns businesses 
which give the public what they want, while protecting businesses 
which offer less popular products. Socialists in government 
penalizes successful businesses, even though they pay huge taxes, 
because socialists want success to be dependent on government, 
rather than private initiative, regardless of consequent loss to the 
consumer. Socialists seek government power, not social prosperity. 
Houston Rice



MTC-00011952

From: Stephen Heaton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft will never change. I think the government is 
too slow to react to the largest computer software maker in the 
world. They have a lock on the desktop, you still cannot buy Linux 
preloaded from Dell, HP etc. Money is NOT the answer, if you cannot 
break them up, why spend all my tax dollars?? It all seems like 
another mass waste of my tax dollars (again).
    Break them up in 3 parts, but since the ``new'' group of public 
servants decided not to seek that, Microsoft should have refund to 
us, over 100 bucks each, to any one who has bought a software 
package from them that cost 100 dollars or more In the last 3 years. 
The end user needs a large refund, if money is the only thing they 
understand.
    Thanks for reading this!



MTC-00011953

From: Jon Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am an information technology professional with 8 years of 
extensive experience in software engineering, systems 
administration, data design, coding, and testing. I have a broad 
background, but my core competencies are in web systems. While 
serving as a commissioned officer in the US Air Force, I installed, 
administered, and developed with my first web server in 1994, at the 
advent of the world wide web. In my career, I have worked with a 
variety of operating systems, including flavors of Unix and versions 
of Microsoft Windows. I've also used an array of open standards, 
including HTML, CSS, Http, LDAP, CGI, XML, and Java. Very recently, 
I moved an entire internet and intranet infrastructure for a large 
academic medical center from a Unix (Sun Solaris) hosted environment 
to one using Microsoft based servers. Currently, I work 
independently as a developer and consultant. As such, I feel I have 
relevant insight into Microsoft's technology and business practices. 
I favor a best of breed approach to system development, so I also 
believe I represent an objective point of view. I regularly use 
Microsoft software at work and home, and continue to do so where I 
deem appropriate; I am writing this message in Microsoft Outlook, 
for instance. I also use other operating systems and recommend their 
use in circumstances where I judge there is a better alternative.


[[Page 25523]]


    Throughout my career, my ability to provide value to my 
employers or customers has been adversely affected by Microsoft's 
technology and business practices. The software they deliver, 
particularly new software, is typically far less efficient, stable, 
or secure than alternative approaches. Their products are usually 
designed with dependencies that require you to use other Microsoft 
products and sabotage the concurrent use of non-Microsoft 
approaches. Many of their offerings do not uninstall properly, and 
leave a permanent presence on the hosting system. Because they write 
the operating system too, some of their applications make use of 
capabilities that are not available to non-Microsoft developers. 
Their licensing practices are mercenary and anti-competitive, using 
vehicles like sole-source relationships to build inordinate market 
share. Once Microsoft gains control of a market, they begin raising 
prices at a rate faster than the industry in general. Most 
importantly, Microsoft has repeatedly undermined and perverted open 
standards to serve their own ends, including every one I listed 
above.
    I know that business is competitive by nature, but I agree with 
the Justice Department's repeated findings that Microsoft's business 
practices crossed the line and were illegal. Further, I believe that 
Microsoft created a situation for itself that is bad for the 
industry and the economy at large over the long term. While I will 
concede that many dot-coms burned capital on irresponsible business 
models and implementations, I attest that Microsoft has some amount 
of personal responsibility for the bursting of the bubble economy 
and the current economic woes of the information technology industry 
and the country. The cost of developing on the web should not be as 
high as it is now, but who knew in the early days of e-commerce the 
momentum of progress in open standards could be stymied so 
effectively by one player. Microsoft is in direct conflict with the 
cooperative culture that brought us the internet, and their long 
term strategies will exacerbate this problem: where Microsoft 
succeeds, all others will bleed. History will not be kind if we will 
have to address the same issues again because of an ineffectual 
remedy.
    If the terms of the anti-trust settlement can be realized, then 
it may make some difference. However, I don't have faith that 
Microsoft will adhere to the spirit of the settlement, I have even 
less confidence in the Justice Department's ability to enforce the 
terms of the settlement expediently (especially given how long this 
initial anti-trust process has dragged on), and I believe the 
problem is larger than middleware. In particular, I don't believe 
anything short of making Windows open source would prevent Microsoft 
from taking advantage of the ambiguous nature of a ``middleware 
interface'' to continue to constrain consumers and developers. Don't 
forget that in addition to the operating system and productivity 
application markets, Microsoft has a big stake in development tools; 
a hook into middleware functionality doesn't mean much to me if I 
have to use another Microsoft product to implement it. And I've read 
some of Microsoft's published information on its software in the few 
instances where it doesn't directly involve one of their development 
tools, and it still didn't enable me to communicate cleanly with the 
Windows operating system or their middleware (even when it's 
supposed to). At best, they're support staff has pleaded 
incompetence. I'll buy it, too; they have no history of successfully 
supporting cooperative development outside of Microsoft tools. 
Microsoft's entire oeuvre has a tendency to be black box. To achieve 
its aims, this settlement would have to completely reverse 
Microsoft's closed corporate and development culture. I'm skeptical 
that this settlement will lead to anything more than continued legal 
squabbling.
    On a separate note, the recent class action settlement is too 
plainly a vehicle for Microsoft to broaden it's market share while 
simultaneously getting good press. I view it less as ineffectual and 
more as a disgrace to our legal system.
    This message is a general statement of perspective. If you want 
more insight, specific examples, or verification of my credentials 
feel free to contact me.
    Jon
    Jon Roberts
    [email protected]



MTC-00011954

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We in the state of New Mexico were the first to recognize the 
futility of constant attacks on Microsoft Corporation. I urge you to 
settle the lawsuits once and for all. While Apple corporation 
postures about being shut out of the schools by Microsoft, I don't 
see them giving away an equivalent dollar amount of computer 
hardware and software. . . 
    The political interests of several states should not hold up the 
settlement.
    Gerald N. Gold, MD



MTC-00011955

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to register my approval of the microsoft-DOJ settlement. 
Only nine states refuse endorsement; the other nine states, the DOJ, 
and Microsoft all agree that the settlement makes retribution for 
Microsoft's anti-trust wrongs and provides safeguards against future 
violations. Not only is the remedy of the nine refusing states 
unfairly draconian, it could well be a harm to the technology 
economy. Originally, anti-trust laws were to protect the consumer, 
not advantage competitors.
    I fear that one thing motivating the recalcitrant states is 
serving the special interest of competitors located in their 
respective states. Microsoft should not be allowed to squelch 
competition, but competitors should win because their product 
satisfies consumers and not through legal machinations.
    Sincerely yours,
    W. Potter Woodbery, Ph.D.
    [email protected]



MTC-00011956

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interest of stabilizing America's wavering economy, I 
earnestly urge an end to this long running attack on Microsoft. The 
recently proposed settlement among the defedant and the majority of 
the plaintiffs appears to be more than just for all parties. To have 
a minority contingent holding out for more damages is dragging the 
country down in the hope that the minority may benefit at the 
expense of the well bing of all Americans.
    Bidwell Moore



MTC-00011957

From: David R Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I am writing to express my concern that Microsoft is getting off 
the hook for its illegal monopolistic activities. The current 
Proposed Final Judgment announced by the Justice Department fails to 
deal with the illegal activities pointed out by past court 
investigations and rulings. It would be wrong and bad for the public 
well-being to allow this to happen. I hope that you will take action 
to do what is lawful, just, and in the public interest, not what is 
in the interest of Microsoft. When every personal computer sold in 
America, apart from Apple computers, carries Microsoft software as 
its primary mode of operation, it is apparent that they have totally 
cornored the market. This was the finding of the latest court 
decision. Therefore, Microsoft's illegal hold on the market should 
be broken and Microsoft should be denied the fruits of its past 
violations, just as the Apellate court ruled. I hope that you will 
uphold this ruling and take appropriate action.
    Finally, I hope you will make it impossible for Microsoft to 
carry on any future anticompetitive activity. I have friends who 
work in the computer industry, and they have verified that Microsoft 
indeed engages in this type of activity, much to their dismay. Our 
country and economy thrive on competition and the freedom to develop 
and market new products. Microsoft has the money and power to 
squelch all competition and to continue to further their own 
interests at everyone else's expense.
    Therefore, you are really the last hope of doing something to 
stop them. Please do so. This is a huge and incredibly important 
decision. Please do all that you can to end this monopoly. I appeal 
to you as a public servant to indeed do that which is in the 
interest of the citizens whom you serve. Illegal activity should be 
ended, not pandered to and empowered to continue.
    Sincerely yours,
    David R. Hill
    66 Hobson St.,
    Brighton, MA 02135


[[Page 25524]]




MTC-00011958

From: Clayton Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hereby express my approval for the settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I am saddened and angry 
that nine states refuse to accept the settlement and are forcing 
more litigation. I sincerely hope they lose. I believe it is past 
time to settle this case and for everyone to move on.



MTC-00011959

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement. Microsoft has always acted in the 
best interest of the software industry. Their active encouragement 
of industry-wide standards has made us all winners, even those 
companies and states now claiming foul, and they have promoted the 
rise and success of an entire new industry. Even though they had the 
capability to do so, Microsoft has never acted as a monopoly. The 
have kept the cost of their systems and programs very reasonable, 
and by doing so, they made incredibly advanced information 
processing capabilities available to nearly everyone in our country.
    Thank you.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00011960

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has made a good offer. Lets settle this and get on 
with business. We have enough other problems without trying to break 
up a business.
    Russ Rogers



MTC-00011961

From: Carter, Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This litigation continues to leave uncertainty for both 
customers and the market.
    Please get this case closed ASAP.
    Mark L. Carter
    * (205)967-9330
    7 Fax (205)967-0120
    * mailto:[email protected]
    http://www.ACP-Inc.com http://www.acp-inc.com/>



MTC-00011962

From: Earl Hoveland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I consider Microsoft's settlement offer to be more than fair. I 
have purchased Microsoft products for ten years and have never felt 
they should be penalized for making an honest dollar. Their prices 
have been fair and to penalize them in order to put dollars in the 
pockets of their competitors smacks of socialism and over 
regulation. Obviously the states that are dragging their feet are 
just like the rest of this country-- they have too many attorneys 
who can't get employment in the private sector. I say Hurrah for 
Bill Gates, even if he appears to be a liberal democrat. He must be 
the exception that proves the rule .
    Earl Hoveland
    PO Box 786
    Packwood, Wa 98361



MTC-00011963

From: NY. . . NY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Consumers have not been effected by any ``Anti-trust Act'' by 
Microsoft. This pro-long at is being made by Microsoft's competitors 
who are using the nine state attorney generals as their lawyers,
    Lets end this cast with the nine state attorney generals and 
competitors so that the consumers may be able to receive Microsoft's 
innovative technology.



MTC-00011964

From: Gail Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:32pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to urge a settlement in this endlessly dragged-out 
litigation against Microsoft.
    Right from the beginning, I was appalled by the U.S. government 
interfering with--and penalizing--one of the few remaining 
successful business (and superior products) still extant in the U.S.
    I am a writer-editor--proud graduate of Brown University, proud 
former resident of Washington, DC --and I have lived long enough to 
remember pride in American products. However, if that sentiment were 
not enough, I have ALSO lived long enough to have tried MANY early 
software products, many word processors, many programs. The ones 
that could not measure up died on the vine along the way.
    My particular success story with Microsoft is that I had to 
return to a 5,000-page, 5-volume history that I had edited fifteen 
years earlier for a client on a Microsoft WORD-DOS-based program. 
The hardware had long been deceased and I was left with the discs. 
This translated perfectly and easily into a WORD 2000 for Macintosh, 
about as foreign an exchange as you can get. I find that Microsoft 
is on top because IT HAS THE BEST PRODUCT. I thought this was what 
America was about.
    Now I live in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle does not need 
another economic blow (think Boeing), nor does the U.S. (I 
personally think the stock market bubble that broke in March, 2000 
was pricked mightily by the U.S. government going after a good 
business model--Microsoft.)
    I support Microsoft because it makes the best products. It is 
run by a man who would probably be hacking around with computers 
even if HE had to pay YOU to do it. His success came from 
excellence, not slippery business practices.
    Sincerely, Gail Fox, Bellingham, Washington



MTC-00011965

From: Jim Hoechstetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I have been in the computer industry in a number of capacities 
since 1958 when it was in its infancy and am retired from IBM. It 
was absolutely unconcionable that you went after Microsoft in the 
first place. They were and are guilty of one thing: developing and 
producing the best products available. Microsoft products have been 
chosen by most businesses and consumers because they are the best. 
It appears that the Justice Department feels your charter is to find 
successful businesses and cripple them. How that helps the consumer 
is beyond me. The ``settlement'' that has been agreed to by 
Microsoft, you, and 9 states, is generous on the part of Microsoft 
and much more than the governments invovled should get. I urge the 
judge to accept the agreement and end this whole debacle.
    Jim Hoechstetter
    3100 Cutchin Drive
    Charlotte, North Carolina 28210



MTC-00011966

From: robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  5:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Having read The Revised Proposal Final Judgement, including the 
Competetive Impact Statement, it is in my opinion a thorough 
investigation of the Microsoft Corporation has been completed and it 
is now time to finalize the U.S. Government's involvement in this 
matter.
    I do NOT believe that any further penalties are justified and 
that the U.S. Government should conclude it's case and let the 
Microsoft Corporation continue to offer to everyone all their 
products legally without any more prosecution since they have agreed 
to abide by the penalties and remedies imposed upon them and did 
them voluntararily and are abiding to th U.S. Government's wishes by 
law.
    Finally I believe it is time to give Microsoft some praise for 
producing great products,products that are inovative and products 
that are well researched and promoted legally. Wishfully I would 
hope that more corporations would be at least as inovative as 
Microcoft thereby preventing the severe jealous feelings that I 
believe they have for Microsoft.
    I believe that in a free business society that corporations 
should be free to inovate while breaking no laws.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Thacker =====



MTC-00011967

From: James Chambers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day,
    I would like to say that I thought that the settlement in the 
Microsoft case is harsh 


[[Page 25525]]

enough and serves its purpose and the better 
interest of the public.
    I do believe, though, that Microsoft should be on probation, 
much like a high-risk re-offender. I believe that at this stage, 
Microsoft has appointed an internal Compliancy Officer to adhere to 
the settlement and the other rulings of J. Penfield Jackson. This 
shows tremendous effort on their part that they are trying to do 
their best, but I think there should also be external monitoring.
    This is not because I feel that Microsoft will reoffend, but 
rather that, in the eyes of the public, they will not be afforded 
such an opportunity. As we all know, you attract more ants with 
honey; let's keep the honey out of reach and everybody wins.
    James Chambers



MTC-00011968

From: Dr. James F. Gaines
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:39pm
Subject: Antitrust settlement
    Sir/Ma'am== I am a perennial user of Windows and many of its 
applications. I have n complaint about prices, service , upgrades or 
other aspects that some of the Attornies General seem to want to 
focus on upon directions from their respective corporate cohorts who 
compete with Microsoft. Microsoft has done a good service for me and 
for all of my friends who are part of the computerized public. If 
Apple doesn't want Microsoft to install computers in the poorer 
school for free, then let Apple install them for free. Antitrust 
statutes were established to protect the consuming public and not 
the businesses that fail to keep up. James F. Gaines, DVM, MS, 
Business owner.



MTC-00011969

From: Samhael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
208 50th Street NW
Bradenton, FL 34209-2880
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I very much appreciate your strong leadership of DOJ over the 
past year. In order for the recent settlement agreed to by Microsoft 
and the Justice Department to go through it is critical that you 
demonstrate uncompromising support for this agreement. This 
settlement will end three years of litigation that have cost both 
sides dearly in time and resources. Outside interests would like 
this settlement eliminated because they claim it is unfair. The 
truth however is the settlement will give competitors never before 
offered access to Microsoft's secret code, including internal 
interfaces. Microsoft has also agreed to make it very easy for 
competitors to place their software on Microsoft operating systems. 
While both sides, MS and the DOJ, are ready to settle there will be 
those, many with anti-Microsoft prejudice, who will try to have this 
settlement removed. I would like to state again that it is critical 
for you to show tenacious support for this settlement. Thank you.
    Sincere regards,
    Sam Espy



MTC-00011970

From: Bill Lucks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the settlement entered into with the DOJ and 
encourage you to do all possible to put this unfortunate attack by 
Microsoft's competitors behind us.
    William G. Lucks



MTC-00011971

From: douglasleifeste
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft hearing
    To whom, Please dont let a few narrow minded ,selfish people 
hold up the settlement of this case particularly after 911. We need 
to get this country back on its feet.
    Thank You, Douglas Leifeste,1214 Vine Ave,Sunnyside Wa



MTC-00011972

From: Apurva Dalia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the court should accept the settlement. Public 
money should not be used in bringing such cases against corporations 
that have helped USA become the world 's leading economy that it is 
today. If companies feel intimidated by government interference such 
as this, America will not remain the prime location that it is today 
to establish global businesses.
    The current recession and events threaten to set us back. We 
need to do everything we can to not let this happen. The Government 
needs to focus on issues like Security, Foreign Policy and Economic 
Stimulus. There is no point in dragging this case any further. 
Please accept the settlement.
    Thanks
    Apurva Dalia
    9926, 128th Ave NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00011973

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:47pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Members:
    I admit that I have Microsoft stock in my meager retirement 
account and have a vested interest in their well being. However, as 
I see it you have an opportunity to provided common sense solutions 
to this legal debacle that has gone far too far already. I urge you 
to find for Microsoft and allow them and other companies to get on 
with the business of innovation and life improvement for us all.
    Thank you,
    Robert G. Aikins



MTC-00011974

From: Smith-Bates, Jacqui
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/15/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would encourage the DoJ and the States to settle the Microsoft 
case. It has been tedious, has not proven that Microsoft has hurt 
consumers, and has been detrimental to the U.S. Economy. The case 
should be settled immediately.
    Thank you,
    Jacquelyn Smith
    4319 Wallingford Ave
    N Seattle, WA 98103



MTC-00011975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case and allow Microsoft to function 
without government intrusion. Microsoft is a model of 
entrepreneurial spirit in the United States and the other companies 
who cried foul should take a lesson from Microsoft and compete in a 
capitalistic marketplace that is unfettered by government 
manipulation.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    C. Austin



MTC-00011976

From: thebirdsalls
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:52pm
Subject: Move on and off Microsoft
    Get off Microsoft's case!
Elise M. Birdsall
1896 Peachtree Ave.
The Villages, Fl 32162
352-259-9870



MTC-00011977

From: Scott Futral
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As both a stockholder and a citizen I am appalled that the 
Microsoft offer of settlement was not accepted!



MTC-00011978

From: WILLIAM A CLEMENTS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This whole law suit is a terrible thing for Microsoft and our 
country. It is preposterous for our justice department to stick 
their noses in private business when they ``failed to share'' with 
other merchants their secrets. If these other designers of software 
can do a better job than Microsoft on their own, then so be it.
    And don't try to cheat Microsoft out of its justs rewards for 
doing a superlative job.
    William A Clements
    [email protected]



MTC-00011979

From: Walt Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We have wasted enough tax money on the Microsoft case, it is 
time stop any more action.
    Walt Casey



MTC-00011980

From: thebirdsalls


[[Page 25526]]


To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  6:58pm
Subject: finalize the Microsoft case ASAP
    Gentlemen:
    It's time to move on. Microsoft is the goose with the golden 
eggs. Oracle is using USA's, DoJ for competitive advantage. Finalize 
it!
    Marianne Gyle
    1896 Peachtree Ave.
    The Villages, Florida 32162
    352-259-9870
    [email protected]
    CC:Elise M. Birdsall



MTC-00011981

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    This action by the remaining States can only continue the attack 
on American enterprise and the freedom to be innovative. The nine 
States are simply going after Microsoft's cash position so they can 
make high settlements with outside attorneys and add more to each 
States' general funds. Much the same as those States sharing in the 
bonanza produced by the tobacco industry.
    Buyers in the past had the opportunity to load what ever was 
available in the operating system inventory if they wished. They 
were not forced to buy MS products anymore than we are forced to buy 
a Ford. As for buyers paying too much, how in the world will this 
ever be determined?
    Finish this farce being done in the name of justice.
    Sincerely,
    John L. Eskelin
    Puyallup, WA



MTC-00011982

From: SHARONNE PLOTNIK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:07pm
    I find it very disturbing that we do not let microsoft help our 
public schools. The settlement and lawsuits are now just feeding 
into people that want to make money on lawsuits. Think of the rest 
of the people--get over it and get on with the business of progress.



MTC-00011983

From: James Lambo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Microsoft is providing a tremendous product to the public. 
Please find a way to settle this case fairly and let them get on 
with their work.
    Jim Lambo



MTC-00011984

From: EDWARD E KELLUM
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I concur with the proposed Microsoft Anti-rust settlement with 
the exception of Microsoft supplying schools with Microsoft 
software. This would be very unfair to Apple Corp. As I understand 
it, this part of the agreement has been denied by the judge. If 
Microsoft gave money only to the schools and the schools could 
select the hardware software they chose, I think that would be OK.
    I am a Mac computer user and I also use Microsoft Office 
Software, Microsoft Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. I think 
that Microsoft has supported the Mac computer very well. That is in 
contrast to Word Perfect word processor which dropped Mac support 
and to Netscape which was a much poorer browser than Internet 
Explorer. I used to use Word Perfect and Netscape. I think it would 
be detrimental to computer users and the United States if more 
destructive terms were adopted, such as a break up of the company.
    Edward Kellum
    615 Vaquero Rd.
    Monrovia, CA 91016
    [email protected]



MTC-00011985

From: Gunner Agosto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The Microsoft settlement is too critical an issue to allow the 
stalling tactics by a small minority of users bent on enriching 
themselves. The issues have been have been endlessly argued and a 
reasonable settlement reached through the Tunney Act. Let's finally 
move on.
    Gunner Agosto



MTC-00011986

From: Shelley Blumberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer who uses and likes Microsoft software. I hope 
that the settlement that was reached with the Department of Justice 
and nine states will be accepted. I want Microsoft to focus on 
developing more and better products. Microsoft produces good 
products that work well, are easy to use, and are low cost. I don't 
think that taxpayer money should be spent on yet more lawsuits 
against Microsoft to benefit Microsoft's large competitors, such as 
Sun Microsystems and Oracle. These companies should compete with 
Microsoft by producing better products at competitive prices rather 
than using the judicial system to try to prevent Microsoft from 
producing innovative products. I hope that I will open my Wall 
Street Journal soon and see that the DOJ-Microsoft settlement has 
been accepted and that the case is over!
    Sincerely,
    Shelley Blumberg



MTC-00011987

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:15pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think its time the goverment left private business alone



MTC-00011988

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    They sure are making a lot about little. Why not make a small 
resonable settlement to those that are crying because of their 
inability to compete and move on.
    What an expensive pain they are being.
    Ted VanZwol



MTC-00011989

From: Evelyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    In my opinion the settlement that has been reached in the 
Microsoft case should be consumated. I am in favor of settlement now 
and in not prolonging this case with further litigation. It is good 
for America and therefore in the public interest. It is not in the 
public interest to spend taxpayer's dollars to drag this out 
further.
    Sincerely,
    Evelyn H. Payne



MTC-00011990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Litigation on Microsoft Anti-trust charges have gone on much too 
long and continuation cannot be good for our economy.
    Microsoft provides a great reliable service which may be 
seriouly compromised if it is further restricted.
    J.R. Scrivener



MTC-00011991

From: Kerlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft has done more to bring order and ease of use in it's 
software than any other company.
    THANK YOU. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
    Rick Kerlin



MTC-00011992

From: markthome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:22pm
Subject: Holding up progress
    Please do what you can to enable the companies of the United 
States to progress on the basis of their achievements. Not on the 
basis of one suing another in order to compete.
    Mark Thome,
    Bellevue, Washington



MTC-00011994

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:28pm
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail

January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DO 20590-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion of the recent settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft. I think the case 
dragged out far too long, and should 


[[Page 25527]]

be finalized, even if the 
penalties imposed on Microsoft are too harsh.
    I am a proponent of free enterprise and I think Microsoft should 
not be restrained from being able to innovate and grow as they have 
in the past. I also do not think Microsoft has a monopoly that could 
possibly be construed as bad for our economy. Actually, I think 
Microsoft as it is today does more good than harm for our public 
But, I understand some of the lawmakers' and politicians' 
complaints, and that is why the terms of the settlement are more 
than fair. Microsoft will be conceding internal interfaces and 
protocols. They will be designing future Windows versions so that 
competitors can more easily promote their own products. And, the 
government will be forming a three-person team to monitor compliance 
with the settlement. We are at war and in recession. We need 
Microsoft's industry strength to be building wealth and technology 
for our country instead of fighting legal battles in the courts. I 
thank you for your time and hope your office looks out for the 
public's best interests, and I hope that you work with Attorney 
General Butterworth to have this settled in the State of Florida as 
well.
    Sincerely,
    G. Kowalski
    201 Orlando Boulevard
    Indialantic, Florida 32903



MTC-00011995

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and should be 
approved. Let's put this behind us and grow our economy, to which 
Microsoft contributes a good deal.
    Al Ackerman
    9141 NW 13 Street
    Plantation, Fl 33322



MTC-00011996

From: hairdoc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do now and always have felt that the DOJ's and various state 
attorneys suits against Microsoft Corp. are the result of the 
prejudiced views of elected officials from states where Microsoft's 
competition reside. This constitutes what I and everyone I speak to 
considers an injustice perpetrated against Microsoft Corp. As you 
know millions of our tax dollars have already been wasted in an 
attempt to wrongfully punish this company. I like most Americans who 
used P.C's. before the advent of Windows hold Microsoft in the 
highest regard. I am proud of it's performance in dominating it's 
field because in doing so it took us out of the realm of cryptic DOS 
code and into the future of computing. Lets face it, the driving 
force behind any great advancement has always been profit. By 
punishing Microsoft for doing exactly what any other large 
corporation or small businessman would do in it's place sends a bad 
signal to those of us who have the nerve to gamble in the high 
stakes world of business. By the way what would the trade deficit 
have been last quarter if Microsoft did not sell software worldwide?
    Please stop this nonsense and accept this settlement that is 
already much larger then the so-called (but in my mind fabricated) 
harm done to the ``public'' Let this great American company thrive 
and grow.
    Thank you for considering my position.
    Stephen F. Dasaro



MTC-00011997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    In 1997, I took a job as a software graphical user interface 
engineer for a company called Imedia Corporation. At that time, the 
technical leadership of the company had determined that the 
graphical user interface for the project needed to be supported in a 
web browser, and as a result, Sun Microsystem's Java technology was 
chosen. As a then Microsoft developer, I preferred to retain my 
skills in Microsoft's tools while learning what was required to 
complete my task in Java, remaining agnostic towards any particular 
platform or vendor. What happened externally during the life of that 
project was shocking, unprofessional, unethical, and (as we now 
know) historic. Microsoft decided to wrest control of Java 
technology from Sun Microsystems, not only at a platform libraries 
level, but at the language-specification level by adding new 
keywords whose intention was uncontestably to subvert the promise of 
``write once, run anywhere'' that made Java technology an appealing 
choice for developers. As we know, Sun Microsystems sued Microsoft 
over this issue and won it, but at the cost of Microsoft's dropping 
Java support entirely from their operating system and browser. While 
this was happening, though the future of the technology was 
uncertain, my own project at Imedia Corporation was going extremely 
well. Java technology had allowed me enough time to complete my 
project and had given me plenty of time to tune it, a much faster 
turnaround for a project than I had ever been accustomed to. The 
entire time I could not help but feel that the world was losing a 
fantastic technology that was being stifled only through monopoly 
power.
    Now it is 2002, and sadly, Java technology has still not become 
widely available on the desktop. I now work for Microsoft's 
competitor, Sun Microsystems, which I find ironic because of 
Microsoft's attempt to determine the future of my project and own my 
code or choice of language. Microsoft made me a competitor, and all 
I ever wanted to do was to own my own code, and be free to choose 
the right technology for the right job. As a professional software 
developer, it is highly important to me that Microsoft's illegal 
abuse of monopoly power has stifled innovation, created an 
environment with little to no regard for security, and left the 
consumer vulerable and unaware that there is even anything missing 
or wrong. Innovation is easy to measure, but measuring non-
innovation is difficult.
    It is important for software developers and the future of 
technology that Microsoft not be allowed to walk away from stifling 
innovation for so long without suffering so much as a scratch, and 
for these reasons (as well as more specific technical ones), I 
highly disagree with the proposed settlement between the Department 
of Justice, nine states, and Microsoft.
    I would like to extend support to the proposed remedy by the 
nine states which objected to the settlement, including the state of 
California, of which I am a resident as well as a registered voter. 
I believe that this solution is far better for the state of 
technology, Java technology in particular, as well as the security 
and integrity of data for all consumers. Because I work for a 
competitor of Microsoft, I want to assert that my opinion as a 
software professional is my own and is unsolicited by Sun 
Microsystems.
    This I swear under penalty of purjury,
    Sincerely,
    Michael Martak
    Oakland, California



MTC-00011998

From: rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    TO: DOJ
    The software industry is highly competitive and one dimension of 
that competition is to use government to gain a competitive 
advantage rather than one's own creativity and initiative. To settle 
this case now in favor of Microsoft is the best way to ensure 
competition, satisfy customers and help the economy get back on 
track
    Thanks



MTC-00011999

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I am in favor of supporting Microsoft. They should not be 
penalized for their success.
    Norma Korn
    [email protected]



MTC-00012000

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that as a taxpaying citizen and someone who is eager 
to see the United States keep it's lead in technology, it is time to 
settle this prolonged action against Microsoft. I, more and more, 
get the strong feeling that legal action is intended to foster an 
unfair competitive advantage for manufacturers in those states 
working to further ``muddy the water''. Why not let actions agreed 
speak for themselves and let competitive products work to obtain 
their own marketing success rather than ask Microsoft to subsidize 
their operations. Enough already!
    Donald S. Chakas
    810 W. Pacificview Road
    Bellingham, WA. 98226



MTC-00012001

From: PATRICIA ANTLITZ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement


[[Page 25528]]


P.O. Box 1395
Hampton, NH 03843-1395
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I appreciate the difficulty of your job, and the many weighty 
issues you must consider, particularly in these difficult times. I 
appreciate your strong leadership and the difficult decisions you 
are called upon to make.
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust case settling. I am 
disappointed the settlement has been held up for so long and view 
this as not beneficial to Microsoft, its competitors, the computer 
industry, or the US economy. I believe that Microsoft is great 
American company and has done many great things not only for the 
computer industry, but also for the US economy as a whole. I am 
supportive of the work they have done to make technological 
advances. I would like to see the parties involved in this case move 
on so that Microsoft may continue to innovate. I believe that any 
further delays will be detrimental to our nation.
    The settlement agreement should satisfy those who feel Microsoft 
has engaged in any anticompetitive behavior. The changes purported 
in the agreement are fair to all parties involved. There is no 
reason to continue the litigation. Monies being spent on litigation 
would be better put to use in research and development, an area that 
has helped our nation maintain a competitive edge in technology and 
remain a leader among nations.
    Thank you for considering these comments.
    With greatest respect,
    Patricia Antlitz



MTC-00012003

From: Dean Parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dept. of Justice.
    This is a great company in a great country. Microsoft built a 
better mouse trap and people want it. This country was build on 
competition, and great ideas. We should have more people like Bill 
Gates, and no more Bill Clinton.
    This is a hugh waste of tax payer dollars. And I for one have 
seen enough waste to last a thousand years. For anyone that is 
crying about Microsoft,if you can't stand the heat, get out of the 
kitchen.
    Sincerely
    Dean Parsons



MTC-00012004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SETTLE!!!!! This is a ridiculous, old, tired argument and 
Microsoft has awesome products at fair prices that have never harmed 
anyone. They have made my life at home and running my own business 
easy! I am so happy with their product, and as a business owner I 
hope the government does not decide to sue every successfull company 
Americans make!
    Laurel James



MTC-00012005

From: Cecelia Breidenbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can't believe how long this litigation has dragged. With all 
that has happened, it seems prudent to wrap this up. The states 
holding out are, in my opinion, are more than greedy--in that they 
turned down the MSN gift of computers for their schools. I believe 
they are holding out for $$$ which I hope they don't get.



MTC-00012006

From: Robert Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:43pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TWO VOTES FOR SETTLEMENT NOW--
    ROBERT C. WRIGHT
    SUSAN V. WRIGHT
    1524 HARVEST LANE
    MANASQUAN NJ, 08736



MTC-00012007

From: Laurent Tardif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a research fellow at Monash university.
    I read the judgment and all the informations given on the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the US v. Microsoft case on the java-sun 
web site. I'm quiet surprise, that the judgment give only 
restriction to the midleware and OS issues. The judgment doesn't 
give restriction on the key points, for my point of view.
    I give a example. I designed a plug-in to visio, a microsoft 
product. To design this plugin, the documentation tell me that I can 
write my plugin in visual C++ or visual basic. Two microsoft 
languages. To write and compile such language I needed to buy a 
license to be able to write the application. (at the same time, we 
can notice that the microsoft compiler for C or C++ language doesn't 
not provide a full implementation of this language, which decrease 
the possibility to compile an application written in C under unix/
linux on windows system).
    After buying the Microsoft visual suite, I need to access some 
API information, to do so, because the free information are useless 
I need to buy a license to access the developer web site of 
microsoft.
    I used to use netscape to browse the web, the microsoft web site 
is unaccessible with this browser, most of the page are unreadable. 
So I need to set up internet explorer.
    So, in conclusion, to write 200 lignes of code, I have to buy 3 
microsoft license, and install 4 microsoft products. if that, is not 
taking advantage of the situation, what is it.
    Also the judgment doesn't say a word on what microsoft did on 
free-standard, like html, or XML today. The free standard allow, in 
the idea, every body to access information, from every operating 
system, every browser. But microsft doesn't not provide a full 
implementation of these standard, and add some private extension 
inside. The effect, is, the HTML (xml now) page written by microsoft 
application is only readable under microsoft.
    Ask to people using linux/unix, how many html pages they can't 
read, because of some microsoft features.
    Also, nothing is said about the policy of microsoft to provide 
free/cheap license to school, university of microsoft product. The 
effect, is that new student / child know only microsoft product. And 
because when you buy a new computer you have microsoft on, most of 
the people don't know they have other solutions.
    Laurent
    Laurent Tardif
    Monash University
    mailBox 36--Building 26
    School of Computer Science and Software engineering
    Clayton Victoria 3168
    Australia
    Phone : (03) 99055779
    www.csse.monash.edu.au/tardif/



MTC-00012008

From: david thurlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:49pm
Subject: The Microsoft Settlement
    It is high time the Government's case against Microsoft was 
settled. To continue this protracted litigation against Microsoft is 
a waste of taxpayer dollars and a major contribution to the legal 
profession who control far too much in America and represent 
competitors who want a bigger piece of the pie without earning it 
through competitive effort.
    The State Attorney Generals are no more than a vested interest 
group seeking to transfer wealth from a creative, productive 
enterprise and it's shareholders to the legal profession and causes 
espoused by them.
    Look what has happened in the tobacco settlement--the enormous 
funds extracted from tobacco companies ostensibly to be used in 
programs aimed at reducing teen smoking habits has instead been used 
by most states to balance state budgets. Where is the integrity and 
fairness in that--and at what cost in legal fees. Why doesn't 
government stand up to the legal profession and control excessive 
fees paid in this type of litigation?
    Throw out the States case and let Microsoft get back to 
participating in the resurgence of our damaged economy.
    David Thurlow



MTC-00012009

From: Bettye Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Think it is time to settle this and move on to other things. 
Microsoft has had enough and other things are more important now. 
Enough is enough.



MTC-00012010

From: Joy Buck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:55pm
Subject: Settle Microsoft


[[Page 25529]]


    This is a free country. Yes, Bill Gates has become a 
millionaire, however, he had the brilliance to do so. If you 
personally had the foresite to pursue as he did, would you be a 
little upset about the government involvement in your business? I 
think you need to leave his business alone.
    Joy Buck



MTC-00012011

From: G. Franklin South
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is difficult for me to understand why there is still so much 
controversy about settling The United States versus Microsoft, when 
the United States and nine of these 'united states' have accepted a 
proposed settlement. Nine other states, supported and encouraged by 
competitors of Microsoft, seem to question the wisdom and the 
veracity and the ability of their litigation partners to monitor and 
enforce the provisions of the proposed settlement.
    I fail to see how continued litigation and argument and rehash 
is going to benefit me as a computer user. For that matter, I still 
do not see how I have been disadvantaged or overcharged by 
Microsoft. As an example, I used the Netscape Communicator for 
almost a year, but then downloaded Internet Explorer and after some 
use, decided that I liked the Explorer better. On the other hand, 
even though I use Microsoft Word, I do not use Microsoft Excel, but 
rather use IBM Lotus 123. I read the argument that the competitors 
of Microsoft do not have a level playing field, that they are 
disadvantaged by Microsoft size and market share. I do point out 
that not too many years ago, IBM was in a similar position--they had 
a monopoly on the data processing business. I dare say that many 
competitors by hard work and improved technology have disproven the 
argument that you can't compete against the big bully.
    I think it is time for those state attorney generals who are 
trying to disrupt a proposed settlement of United States versus 
Microsoft, written, reviewed and accepted by the US Department of 
Justice, and nine states, to put personal ambition aside for the 
good of all of the data processing users. I believe it is next to 
impossible to try to substantiate how further delay is going to 
reward individual users of computers and computer software.



MTC-00012012

From: David Hoech
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is in the best interest of the consumer to drop all 
charges against Microsoft. Shame on the justice department for 
letting criminals such as ADM continue to screw America and want to 
take down Microsoft



MTC-00012013

From: Patty J. Le Beau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE SETTLE
    I am loyal to Microsoft because I love their products and firmly 
believe if left to the other computer companies we would still be in 
the dark ages. Microsoft is a company which has done much for the 
U.S. and much for computer users, both business and personal. I 
don't understand why people keep messing around with them. I for one 
am sick of it.
    PLEASE SETTLE
    Patty Le Beau
    [email protected]



MTC-00012014

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:00pm
Subject: Government should look at PRIORITIES. .
    IF the U.S. Government spent the money,time and resources on the 
war against terrorism, cancer research, education instead of wasting 
OUR TAX $$$ on this matter our country would be way better off, The 
only potential here is to stifle innovation and creativity and 
without that we would be just another third world country instead of 
a great superpower that owes it's strength to innovation and 
creativity to the likes of Microsoft.



MTC-00012015

From: Cliff Magnussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe this settlement is fair, Microsoft, as far is I'm 
concerned is a great Company, the amount of technology that they 
have passed on to the public is more than any Company would normally 
do. Lets get on with it, and SETTLE !!! and let Microsoft do it's 
job, and get this all behind us, it has been far to long in coming.
    Cliff Magnussen



MTC-00012016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it would be in the interest of the global economy to 
settle this lawsuit quickly and swiftly.
    One must take under consideration that Microsoft has not just 
made itself wealthy but has spread the wealth among many people--its 
own employees and many outside stockholders. Matter of fact the 
stockmarket began to spiral downward the moment you started messing 
with the company. Please consider that Microsoft has donated 
millions to good use and is continuing to do so. That does not erase 
some of the tactics Microsoft might have used in obtaining business 
that you consider illegal and for which Microsoft will suffer 
consequences and already has. Punishing the company more and more 
and breaking it up into pieces will not help many folks. Look at 
what has been done to the telephone company in Washington State. The 
negative effects are still felt today and that was 15 years ago. 
Sure it has brought about many small competitors which meanwhile 
increased the bankruptcy numbers of this country. It is a good thing 
that you let folks speak out for or against Microsoft. Thank you.



MTC-00012017

From: Carol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:05pm
Subject: litigation ended or prolonged
    In the interest of all, lets get to the bottom of this fast and 
resolve it. All want the freedom to be innovative, and we should not 
be curtailed; however, there must also be a way to protect the 
little guy and the weak in all charity, and not just at the whim or 
preference of the rich and powerful. Humility, fairness and charity 
of heart is needed here.
    Carol Dixon Klein, Naples, Fl.



MTC-00012018

From: lillian ingram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:05pm
Subject: Bad Joke!
    All the opposition to Microsoft is nothing more than the 
competition being unable to compete with the Research and 
Developments of MSFT. The government should butt out. MSFT has done 
more for this country than the others combined.



MTC-00012019

From: Jim Kilgore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:05pm
Subject: Gov't vs Microsoft
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Please stop using Microsoft as a political football. Leave them 
alone and let them innovate. I enjoy their products and I consider 
that the price they charge is reasonable. Why does the government 
not want companies to be successful?
    Sincerely
    James L. Kilgore



MTC-00012020

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:08pm
Subject: No Subject
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I was disappointed to see that the Government refused 
Microsoft's offer to donate 1 billion dollars to the schools of the 
United States. The children of this country will be the ones who 
lose. I thought this administration was the Education administration 
but with this decision it makes me question if the government is 
really interested in education.
    Lawrence E. Mast



MTC-00012021

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is about time to end this litigation which only serves to 
enrich the lawyers and give the politicians a platform to attempt to 
get votes. All of this is a great waste at a time when it serves to 
further slow economic recovery.
    Please, put an end to it!
    L. B. Stuart



MTC-00012022

From: Sandra Maino
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25530]]

Date: 1/15/02  8:10pm
Subject: Settlement
    It is about time the government needs to stop this witch hunt. 
Microsoft innovations have allowed the common man to enter the realm 
of technology by providing user friendly software and operating 
systems.
    We are a country which allows competition among the industries, 
and if you have a good product, your company will flourish. Should 
we condemn Chrysler for selling more cars than Chevrolet and call 
them a monopoly? If the other software companies were so great, they 
would be another Apple or Microsoft.
    Perhaps in our down economy, the Justice Department would like 
Microsoft to become another Enron.



MTC-00012023

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:10pm
Subject: microsoft
    Hi Microsoft is the best company in the world. The justice 
department has ruined a great economy by trying to bread up and 
control Microsoft & the rest of the computer science world. Just 
leave private enterprise alone. The government spent millions of 
dollars that could have been given back to the tax payers, because 
it is our money, but or no Clinton was in the pocket of the 
California computer science group. Just think of all the money spent 
by the government and Microsoft combine, the tax payers could have 
been buying all kinds of new computers and software, that would have 
been very good for the economy. Get off Microsoft's back and let it 
innovate for the good of us all. Good by.



MTC-00012024

From: Brassytrader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough, Microsoft has done more for the computer 
industry and the economy in general than any corporation in history. 
The competition failed to realize that proprietary and non 
integrated technology has no place in the computer industry and have 
become part of our economic slowdown. (I remember well the pre 
Windows era when new programs did not work without re-configuring 
the whole operating system, now thanks to Microsoft it all works 
together) Please drop this ludicrous litigation and let Microsoft 
get on with the business of helping the country move ahead.
    Regards,
    Michael Harrington. 5097477412



MTC-00012025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:12pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dept. of Justice:
    Please tell me by what ``moral'' right the goverment of The 
United States of America goes after, with such malice, one of 
America's greatest companies and one of this countries greatest 
businessmen?
    Could ANYONE in the Dept. of Justice write one piece of software 
or produce any goods that could be marketable?
    I strongly suggest that this government leave it's most 
productive citizens alone because what you are doing is so immoral 
that you are not only damaging the company Microsoft but all the 
millions of people who have invested in this company. He, unlike the 
government did not steal anyone's money but produced a product 
``better'' than his competitors. This is precisely why he/Microsoft 
is being punished.
    The attack on this country from within is far greater than from 
outside.
    I urge you and your immoral laws to simply ``LEAVE THEM ALONE''!



MTC-00012026

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft litigation
    Please cease the expensive litigation surrounding Microsoft. The 
effort thus far has been detrimental to our economy and an example 
of businesses that could not compete in the marketplace trying to 
compete in court. This is an everchanging playing field and open to 
anyone with new and good ideas. ENOUGH is ENOUGH>
    Melvin Horwitz
    223 Ludlow Road
    MAnchester, CT 06040



MTC-00012027

From: W. Roger Gehman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    Let's end this farce and let Microsoft get back to doing what 
they do best. This whole case was nothing more than a big political 
football cooked up by Microsoft competitors, with the full 
cooperation of the Clinton administration, and Attorney General 
Reno. She investigated everything imagineable, except what was 
really in need of investigation---namely her boss, the President!
    Warren R. Gehman
    126 Park Avenue
    Miunt Joy, PA 17552



MTC-00012028

From: Okey McQuain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Do not appeal Microsoft settlement. Please let Microsoft alone.
    Okey McQuain
    227 Evergreen Drive
    Elkins, WV 26241-3007
    e-mail --- [email protected]



MTC-00012029

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is not the american way to penelize a company for 
working hard. taking the risks involved, and making a success.
    I further feel that it is envy, or jealousy on the part of the 
others to accuse Microsort of being a monopoly. after all, one of 
the biggest monopolies of all time is the U S Postal Service, and 
their service is poor in many cases, They fail to perform a suitable 
service to the american public. So I say ``Lay off microsoft, and 
let then continue to provide services that have became essential to 
the american public.
    William H Pearson.



MTC-00012030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    This agreement that Microsoft has offered is more the gererous 
so this argument should be settled once and for all.
    Kathryn Wells



MTC-00012031

From: Srinivasa Eedarapalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Settlement is great for consumers. I do not see that 
Microsoft was at fault in the first place. Judge Penfield Jackson 
just used his personal opinions arrive at a rash judgement. His 
judgement should have been thrown out atleast after listening to his 
post trial comments.
    I am a Technology Consultant and I know how SUN & Oracle loot 
Companies with thier high priced products. AOL--Look who is talking 
about misusing monopoly. AOL refused to let other instant messengers 
to integrate with their version. Their advertisements say ``all my 
friends are in AOL (basically their instant messenger)'', saying 
that if you do not take AOL internet access you will miss out on 
istant messages to your friends. Is this not misusing monopoly? Is 
this good for consumer?
    Let companies compete in marketplace. Not go to governament for 
help compete.
    Srinivasa Raju Eedarapalli



MTC-00012032

From: Carole Joy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:23pm
Subject: mircrosoft ruling. . . 
    I believe that who ever invents and sells their product should 
be allowed to keep it fully theirs and all the profit from it. . . . 
.Microsoft did the research, work, invention, and building of the 
product and should be able to reap its reward for it. carole taylor



MTC-00012033

From: Frank Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:25pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It is in the interest of this voting family to resolve tthe 
Microsoft issue as soon as possible, and we urge the courts to 
quickly and fairly resolve the current litigation.
    Frank & Pam Spencer



MTC-00012034

From: Tom Bires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:26pm
Subject: You got the wrong guy


[[Page 25531]]


    With all due respect, Microsoft is not the bad guy in the world 
of computers. As a software developer and user for the past 26 (yes 
26) years, I can say that Microsoft has been a breath of fresh (and 
inexpensive) air in a world of otherwise expensive computer hardware 
and software. Just look at the price for any of the standard PC 
applications we know and depend on. Word processors, spreadsheets, 
databases, personal information managers, and yes Web browsers. 
Microsoft has employed the standard economies of scale to slash 
prices on all of these major applications at all times in their 
history. How can that be bad for consumers. Does our justice 
department really think that we are not paying enough for our 
software. All of these applications on all other platforms over the 
past 25 years were MUCH more expensive before Microsoft entered the 
market. Sun Microsystems, the chief Egger Onner of the Justice 
Department against Microsoft is a prime example of a company with 
proprietary hardware and limited market software and the resulting 
MUCH higher prices for all major applications--not to mention slower 
performance relative to the incredibly fast Pentiums which are a 
direct result of the beneficial mass marketing efforts of Microsoft 
and Intel. Go after Sun if you want to punish a company that tries 
to corner a market and turn the screws on its customers.
    I have lived the computer revolution from the inside and can say 
with no qualms, ``You got the wrong guy.''
    Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify or elaborate.
    Thank you for taking time to listen,
    Tom Bires
    Thomas L. Bires
    Application Networks
    444 Ramona
    Palo Alto, CA 94301
    (650) 289-1048



MTC-00012035

From: John W. van der Hulst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:28pm
Subject: Settlement
    I encourage the Government to settle this matter ASAP. 
Microsoft's offer appears appropriate. Our economy needs this 
company to concentrate all its resources on developing and exporting 
its technology, not endless legal maneuvering with the Justice 
department.
    John van der Hulst



MTC-00012036

From: SUE BONK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this suit, it would help the economy, especially 
since it was the beginning of our economic slump and until this is 
settled, we will remain in a slump. Microsoft leaders are not bad 
guys, Enron leaders are bad guys, can't you see a difference????
    S. Bonk



MTC-00012037

From: Durand C. Waters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:34pm
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details
    Note: Forwarded message attached.
    Durand C. 'Randy' Waters
    How can you even seriously consider allowing Microsoft wo gain 
an even bigger hold on the software market and drive schools away 
from their beneficial relationship with other systems that they have 
used for years, such as Macintosh, UNIX and LINUX.
    If you allow this to go as the accused is asking, you will have 
lost any credibility that you may have had.
    Durand C. Waters
    5922 Brook Falls
    Windcrest, TX 78239-2648
    Durand C. 'Randy' Waters



MTC-00012038

From: NJWRESEARCH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:34pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    Please settle case as is. States' continuance will be against 
consumers' best interests.
    Gerry West



MTC-00012039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:38pm
Subject: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
    Having read the relevant documents, I am persuaded that the U. 
S. Government has caved in to special interests. This is 
particularly distressing, since it coincides with the recent change 
in federal administration.
    Puteracy is a new medium. America is playing a world wide role 
in defining its parameters. It would be a disgrace if we were to 
stifle competition at this early stage.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to bully the American people, or 
the world.
    Yours truly,
    Peter Hodgson
    [Emeritus Professor]



MTC-00012040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This case against Microsoft doesn't make much sense to me.
    Compare it to Ford and General Motors. Lets say Microsoft is 
General Motors who makes a very good pickup truck and is equipped 
with a very good Chevy engine. Prior to this Ford had a better 
engine but the GM engine now out performs the Ford. Now here comes 
Ford who thinks it is unfair that GM is selling so many more units 
with the Chevy engine than Ford sells so they get the Government to 
try to force GM to put a Ford engine in the GM pickup.
    What would DOJ do in a case like I just explained?
    Microsoft does not have a monopoly, they just build a better 
product. No one says another company cannot design something better 
but if they did, people would buy it. Computer users want the best 
regardless of who makes it. If people want to buy a Chevy pickup, 
they want a Chevy engine in it, not a Ford.
    If this settlement is supported, it will smell of politics 
supported by only the lawyers that are pushing it and the outlandish 
fees they will reap.
    Ernie Aufenkamp
    Mission, TX



MTC-00012041

From: (123)USER(u)FIRSTNAME(125) (123)USER(u)LASTNAME(125)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:36pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    It is my belief that the proposed settlement by the U. S. DOJ is 
fair and equitable and should be adjudicated on that basis promptly.
    Ronald Matthews
    San Diego, Calif



MTC-00012042

From: Terrie Takemoto-Sua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled. I am extremely 
disappointed that the suit has returned to ligitation.
    I felt that the agreement was fair to all parties involved. That 
is the last thing the US economy needs. . . . .
    Please do not drag this on. Let us get a settlement as quickly 
as possible.
    Terrie Sua



MTC-00012043

From: S. A. Cranney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I would ask the United State Justice Department to drop the 
Microsoft case and let them get on with their work. It is plain and 
simple, the government has egg on its face and should cut their 
losses and take care of more important matters.
    Thank you,
    Spencer A. Cranney
    1760 North 400 East
    North Logan, Utah
    84341
    (435) 752-2273



MTC-00012044

From: Ruthanna Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Think you MUST accept Microsoft's offer. Suggest you research 
the history of computers in education (a field I worked in for 
years)--that research will show that Apple got special government 
privileges and perks for donating Apples to Schools around the 
country in the early 1980's. That is why the education system is 
behind the rest of the computer world in system implementation and 
design.
    Suggest you give the school professionals a chance to ``catch-
up'' with M/S's offer to assist US Schools.
    And that should end the entire matter.


[[Page 25532]]


    Ruthanna Wolf
    Whittier, California 90603



MTC-00012045

From: Susan Brunasso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:37pm
Subject: SETTLEMENT OF MICROSOFT LAWSUIT
    GENTLEMEN
    I think getting MicroSoft to donate $1 Billion in equipment and/
or services to the US Public School System is great for America. I 
wish more settlements of this nature were made that would benefit 
the general US Public. I would add that some of this settlement 
value should be given to the private schools also. Maybe the value 
could be appropriated in porportion to the students are in the 
overall school population. Thank you & ``go get the money from 
MicroSoft for the People!''
    Mario V. Brunasso



MTC-00012046

From: Beth (038) Bob Vogt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel that the Federal and State Governments should have never 
gotten involved in this case. There is no telling how many years 
they have set back free enterprise and initiative. Please get this 
case settled fairly. Do not believe all the sour grape sources that 
are anti Microsoft and want a free ride. I have used Microsoft 
products going back many years. I have found their product to be 
well integrated and thus easy to use between platforms. I can't 
stand to think what can become of this good company and their 
products if their adversaries have their way.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Vogt



MTC-00012047

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft litigatin
    It is apparent that the original steps taken to pursue litigatin 
against Microsoft was politically motivated. Microsoft has enabled 
the ordinary individual to become com- puter competent. The various 
programs developed have been a boom to users and to the economy. Any 
punitive action would appear to smack of jealousy.
    Somehow the entire process has done nothing but collapse the 
computer industry. We hope that the case would be dropped, so the 
public can continue to receive the kind of service which Microsoft 
has been able to afford its customers, not to mention the many who 
have benefitted from its charitable donations.
    The Brisolara Family



MTC-00012048

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen or whoever it may concern:
    It's high time to put the Microsoft suit and settlement to bed. 
The current settlement perameters are fair to both sides. No more 
court time or monies should be spent persuing more penalties against 
Microsoft. Most states have agreed to the latest terms. What are the 
other nine or so looking for? More bucks?
    There are plenty more pressing items our federal and state 
governments and politicians should be spending their time on.



MTC-00012049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: DOJ SETTLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT
    This is to strongly recommend that the proposed DOJ settlement 
of the Microsoft litigation be upheld.
    John Peoples



MTC-00012050

From: MIKE ESS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, My name is Mike. I am 16 yrs old. Microsoft Corporation 
should be required to include Java with Windows XP. I go to a chat 
room called Wetbuster. Its for kids that wet the bed and have 
wetting problems. Its a place to talk and cope about it. You need 
Java to chat there, if there is no more Jave, then there no more 
wetbuster. Also tns of people wont beable to chat there either if 
you take it way. So please keep java. THANK YOU MIKE



MTC-00012051

From: Jim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern, I believe the settlement with Microsoft 
is fair. Let's not waste any more time and money regarding this 
issue. This is what stiffles free enterprise and a strong economy. 
Let everyone get back to work on the important things.



MTC-00012052

From: Carole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
501 TidePointe Way #5118
Hilton Head Island, SC 29928-3053
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I support the Department of Justice's endeavors to settle the 
Microsoft antitrust case. This case has dragged on for far too long, 
and a rapid conclusion is in everyone's best interest.
    The settlement agreement in its present form is quite 
reasonable. The federal judge should approve the agreement, and all 
parties should move forward. No further federal action is needed or 
justified.
    I am particularly impressed with the concessions Microsoft has 
made in the interest of resolving the case. In essence, Microsoft is 
making it easier for its competitors to compete. Microsoft's 
concessions include the agreement to allow computer makers rights to 
promote software other than Windows; the agreement to not retaliate 
against software developers who promote software other than Windows; 
and the commitment to not enter into contracts with retailers or 
distributors to exclusively sell Windows technology, to name a few.
    I appreciate your ongoing efforts to resolve this case.
    Sincerely,
    Carole Fowler
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond by snail mail
    you also will receive a copy by snail mail



MTC-00012053

From: Margaret (038) Doug Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: Settlement
    Will you please do the whole world a favor and drop these 
charges? We don't need the same settlement we had with our phone 
system years ago.



MTC-00012054

From: Richard W Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:43pm
Subject: SETTLE THE CASE
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. . . . . . WHY SHOULD THE WHOLE COUNTRY SUFFER 
FOR THE WHIMS AND JEALOUSIES OF A FEW. . . . . . . . . AS I HAVE 
STATED BEFORE, THIS IS A WORLD OF COMPETITION. . . .IF THOSE WHO ARE 
WHINING ABOUT MICROSOFT WANT TO DO SOMETHING, LET THEM BUILD A 
BETTER MOUSETRAP. . . . .



MTC-00012055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:45pm
Subject: Please. .
    To whom it may concern,
    Please, support the settlement and stop wasting money. 
Prevention is the key, learn from it and set up preventative 
measures.
    Sincerely,
    Geoff Morrison??
    God's judgment may not be immediate, but it is inevitable.



MTC-00012056

From: Erik N. Funk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Please record this citizen's petition to let the market decide 
the fate of Microsoft. . .  this will allow the Justice Department 
to focus its considerable energy on people who and corporations that 
have actually done something wrong besides facilitate development of 
standards and make great software.
    Best regards,
    Erik Funk



MTC-00012057

From: Charles Barrett
To: Microsoft ATR


[[Page 25533]]


Date: 1/15/02  8:48pm
Subject: microsoftsettlement
    I am retired from a successful partnership farming operation 
with my Father and Brother which lasted 52 years; so you see I have 
had a lot of experience. I own a personal computer and have had 
several programs in it and the one I like best, which I was not 
forced to buy is Microsoft. I think they are a very brilliant and 
advanced company. I think that since a majority of the states 
involved in the litigation against Microsoft have elected to settle 
the suit, I think the remaining states should settle also.
    The settlement would be good for the economy and for our Nation. 
Thank You for a ``voice'' in this important litigation.
    Charles R. Barrett
    [email protected]



MTC-00012058

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Please install JAVA in there XP 
operating softwear
    Hi
    My name is Jason, I go to a support chatroom for kids that uses 
Java softwear
    Microsoft has taken the Java softwear out of its XP computer 
softwear. Without the Java in the XP format that means other kids 
who dont have it cant get support from support chatrooms. Please 
consider having them put it back in their XP format so that adults 
and kids can get support online. Thank you



MTC-00012059

From: TOM (038) SUE PONTIUS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:51pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft case, it is fair to all but most 
importantly the consumer!
    Tom and Sue Pontius
    Mariemont, Ohio



MTC-00012060

From: Arcilla, Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I strongly agree with the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
question the motives of the nine states that refuse to join in the 
settlement. Is it a coincidence that these states are the home to 
some of Microsoft's rivals? Obviously not. I hope these non-joining 
states are looking out for consumers and not for Microsoft's 
competition.
    I use Microsoft products and I also have a choice on what to 
install on my computers. I also use Linux, StarOffice from Sun, and 
a host of other non-Microsoft products. Consumers always had a 
choice.
    This settlement should come to fruition. The non-joining states 
should reconsider.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Arcilla



MTC-00012061

From: Michael A Waller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust settlement
    To whom it may concern. . . .
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is fair.
    It's time that the DOJ realizes that Microsoft makes a greater 
contribution to the world of technology and the overall growth of 
our economy than the negative impact of their aggressive practices. 
I am in favor of the DOJ accepting the settlement and stopping the 
remainder of litigious actions in play.
    Get on with life. There are bigger fish to fry.
    Regards,
    Michael A. Walter
    25 Lexington Road
    South Barrington, IL 60010



MTC-00012062

From: Deborah Kaplan Clancy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft vs DOJ case has gone on long enough and wasted 
enough taxpayer money. I think and thought the case should have been 
dropped long ago. But, since that is not what happened, I implore 
you for a speedy resolution.
    It's time to end this lawsuit.
    I believe Microsoft DOES have the interests of the consumers at 
heart and believe this company should be left to do what it does 
best--create software. Because of Microsoft technology many 
companies are able to run their businesses better and faster.
    The DOJ should move on to more important matters.
    Sincerely,
    Deborah Kaplan Clancy



MTC-00012063

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's put an end to the hounding of Microsoft, easily the most 
innovative and influential company of the last decade. As a computer 
geek (but not part of Microsoft), I was in the business when there 
were literally dozens of brands of personal computers, each with 
their own operating system and software. IBM's open architecture and 
Microsoft's DOS and Windows operating system put an end to the 
chaos. Microsoft's Office and email have become such a standard that 
it would be difficult to imagine a modern company without them. I 
also believe that the suit against Microsoft was the beginning of 
the stock market downturn. Yes, Microsoft has become a large 
company. Yes, Microsoft has zealosly positioned itself as the market 
leader. Yes, Microsoft's Windows is now the world standard and has 
become one of the great American success stories. Microsoft should 
be allowed to continue it's journey unshackled by excessive 
regulation. Please, allow them the ``Freedom to Innovate''.
    Thanks,
    Mac Salfen
    Arlington, Texas



MTC-00012064

From: jsb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:I would urge you stongly to approve the 
microsoft settlement!!!Microsoft provides real jobs to our country 
which are desperately needed.To continue this costly litigation 
under the guise of faciltating competition is a sham on our 
country.I am a hard working citizen and its time to end this 
horrible litigation to help out other competitors.
    If these competors cant make a better product that is there 
problem.Thanks for your consideration.



MTC-00012065

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The provisions of the agreement in the Microsoft settlement are 
tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the 
findings of Court of Appeals ruling. Consumers, including myself, 
overwhelmingly agree that the settlement is good for us and the 
American economy, and we, overwhelmingly, want to move beyond this 
litigation. Yet 9 state's attorney generals refuse to listen to the 
citizens they serve, and refuse to accept the settlement.
    It is long past time to take whatever action is necessary to get 
them on board and move on (a 2x4, maybe)! This process has gone way 
past helping the public, and is now actually doing harm. Thank you, 
Harvey Knuth 160 Regency Dr Conway, SC 29526



MTC-00012066

From: Bill Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Please, enough is enough. Within the last thirty days I had sent 
an email to you folks praising you on coming to an agreement 
concerning Microsoft. Again I believe the settlement to be fair to 
all parties and now we must move on.
    Please do all possible to bring this case to a swift close.
    Regards,
    W. G. Williams



MTC-00012067

From: Donald E. Olsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To all concerned. Would you please take the offer Microsoft has 
put on the table. It may serve you well to get out and about to 
realize how much Microsoft has helped our children. I am unable to 
understand how people are so selfish to deny our children the vast 
spectrum of the best and most innovative software in the world------
------for FREE ! They have to be self serving !! If it so important 
to hurt Microsoft in some way take them out behind the barn and slap 
them with a wet noodle. Thank God for Bill Gates and family that 
shares wealth like no other family---------and for the children not 
the ``The States'' with there hands out to use it where?// Donald E. 
Olsby, Carol M. Olsby, Cynthia A. Olsby, Dean E. Olsby, Daniel S. 
Olsby, David E. Olsby, just another American family that knows the 
``RIGHT THING TO DO''=Settle Now!!!!! Go Microsoft 


[[Page 25534]]


Corporation they 
can't take your brains away!!
    Donald E.Olsby



MTC-00012068

From: Marge Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This case should be settled immediately, it has gone on far too 
long. I suspect the only reason is to get more money from Microsoft. 
Please settle this so we can continue to receive the benefits of 
Microsoft's innovation.



MTC-00012069

From: charles jantho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:09pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    IT IS MY SINCERE AND EARNEST OPINION THAT THE MICROSOFT SUIT BE 
SETTLED IN ITS' FAVOR IN THE MAJOR PART AND IMPLEMENTED AT THE 
EARLIEST DATE.
    THANK YOU,
    CHARLES ROBERT JANTHO
    133 WELCOME ALLEY
    BALTIMORE, MD. 21201



MTC-00012070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not own Microsoft Stock, but I use their products. No, I 
depend on their products and I also need their updates and 
innovation to continually improve the way things work for me. I do 
not support the concept that Microsoft has done anything wrong. 
Rather, I feel that they are being penalized simply for being 
successful at doing what they do.
    Please do not take any punitive action toward them; rather, 
please reward them for their important contributions to our 
productivity and enjoyment of life.
    Sincerely,
    B. Richard Bowersox
    A long-term resident of Ohio.



MTC-00012071

From: Malini Balakrishnan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:14pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that the Micrsoft case should be settled as quickly a 
spossible, and that the current setlement agreement is fair to all 
parties concerned.
    Malini Balakrishnan



MTC-00012072

From: Ben Vega
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get on with it. Have you not caused this Company enough 
unwarranted grief? Or do you think that prolonging the fiasco will 
serve to get your brain addled fifteen minutes of fame?



MTC-00012073

From: KATHIE MC CLURE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    It is my opinion that the Antitrust Settlement that was made 
with Microsoft should be upheld in the interest of the economy and 
the furtherance of technology. I believe that the economy will 
suffer even more if the Microsoft case is not settled and goes back 
to court, especially in light of the events of September 11, 2001 
and the war against terrorism. Thank you,
    Sincerely,
    Kathie L. McClure



MTC-00012074

From: Georgie Seitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft is responsible for creating millions of jobs.
    At a time when our economy is so poor, we need to get companies 
like Microsoft back to work full time and out of the court system. 
The longer this trial continues the more our economy will suffer. 
Millions of Americans have already lost their jobs, and millions 
more will lose them soon if there is not a spark of hope to ignite 
the economy and the consumer confidence.
    People will not spend, if they are in fear of losing their jobs 
or worst yet, if they have already lost their jobs. Let's get on 
with it and let one of the leading forces of our economy lead us out 
of this recession before it turns into a depression. We do not have 
anytime to waste, this case must be settled immediately. Microsoft 
and Bill Gates should be given a medal of honor and the fact that 
there has been an antitrust suite brought against them is total 
ridiculous. The most important consideration today is getting 
America back to work, getting Americans to spend money, and getting 
the economy back to normal. There are not many corporation left that 
can clearly lead the way in doing this, but Microsoft can and has 
done so before. If we waste any more time, they may lose the 
momentum to spark a resurgence and that would be devastating to us 
all.
    A settlement to the states would result in little more than the 
outcome of the tobacco settlement. The only winners were the states 
who frivolously have spent the settlements on everything other than 
what the money was intended for. Is that the governments intent here 
too? I implore you to settle this case so Microsoft can continue to 
make the strides it has in the past by creating a competitive 
environment with new technologies which create jobs for us all.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Respectfully,
    Georgie Seitz
    Certified Senior Consultant
    IBM Global Services--USA
    27 Commerce Drive
    Cranford, NJ 07016
    Phone: 908-931-4918
    e-fax: 707-313-2433
    Email: [email protected]
    God Bless America. God Bless the US Troops.



MTC-00012075

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft suit
    Let Microsoft get back to developing more programming options 
rather than spending time and money on court fights. Until Windows 
came along computers were only for people who had time, money and 
energy to learn intense programming. Microsoft opened it up to the 
whole world.
    Bonnie Magure



MTC-00012076

From: Laverne Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How can you possibly delay the Microsoft Settlement? It appears 
to me that too much has been made of a successful company that takes 
care of its employees and the other companies that Microsoft works 
with in the daily operation.
    If you have so much time and money to spend please spend it on 
companies that take advantage of its employees and the other 
companies should be important to its day to day operation. Please 
settle with Microsoft as soon as possible and let them get on with 
what they do best. Make products that a tremendous number of United 
States citizens are very pleased to have at their fingertips.



MTC-00012077

From: Rita Silva--Home
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this whole entire case against Microsoft is absurd & 
should be dropped. In my humble opinion, Bill Gates came up with a 
good idea or two, developed those ideas and marketed them. There are 
those in the world who are jealous of his business skills and they 
decided to wreak havoc on Microsoft. I am disappointed that our 
judicial system would let this whole mess get so out of hand!
    Rita F. Silva
    8019 E. Troop Circle
    Prescott Valley, AZ 86314
    (928)772-2615--home
    (928)442-5141--work



MTC-00012078

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe there should be a settlement. Enough already! Too much 
time and money has been spent on this. Let Microsoft spend its 
efforts creating its wonderful products for the consumer. Sandra 
Brown



MTC-00012079

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
201 Freedom Court
Rockwall, Texas 75032
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft


[[Page 25535]]


US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    After three years I believe it is time to end the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The settlement that you have reached with Microsoft 
will end this case at least at the federal level. This settlement 
represents the most viable solution to date in this case, and that 
is should be put in place soon. Despite the contention by some that 
this settlement is not hard enough against Microsoft this settlement 
is fair and balanced. The settlement will end any contractual 
restrictions Microsoft may have that could possibly harm 
competitors. Furthermore Microsoft has agreed to share formerly 
secret information with competitors so they will be able to place 
their own programs on Microsoft's operating system. The only reason 
to continue this case would be to satisfy those with anti Microsoft 
bias, and this we should not do. This settlement will bring our 
country back towards economic health, and for that reason it should 
be supported. I do not want to see any more legal action taken 
against Microsoft. Sincerely, Bryan Griesbach



MTC-00012080

From: June
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:05pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    PLEASE -SETTLE THIS SITUATION AND LET MICROSOFT DO IT'S JOB. DO 
NOT WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD WITHOUT DRAGGING THIS THING 
ANY FURTHER. WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR MONEY TOWARD SOMETHING 
CONSTRUCTIVE. IF SOME ONE WANTS TO BUILD HIS OR HER POLITICAL FUTURE 
LET THEM LOOK FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN MICROSOFT. LET THE AMBITIOUS 
FOLKS AT MICROSOFT INVENT. AFTER ALL THEY DO IT BEST AND OTHERS WANT 
TO PROFIT FROM IT. SO FAR THE GOVERNMENT HAS ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN. 
JUNE HUBER 701 14TH NE EAST WENATCHEE, WA 98802



MTC-00012081

From: dgcj4
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This case has turned into another political,counter productive, 
bad for the country's economy and spirit exercise that too often 
occurs when soap boxes and greed are supported by competitors and 
those who covet the success of others. This has gone on far too 
long. Between a judge who used his position to most inappropriately 
foster his personal and perhaps others' prejudices and the 
politicians and lawyers who want to make many dollars by hiding 
their greed behind the hollow statements of justice for the common 
man , this case is an embarrassement to the country, our justice 
system and common sense. The common man, with free choices, has 
selected Microsoft products millions and millions of times-- I 
suppose this would irritate a competitor. The ability of competitors 
to have the government use my tax dollars and resources to do their 
dirty work is disgusting. Having spoken to friends in other 
countries, we are the laughing stock around the world for, 
particularly in these times, forcing one of our most successful and 
creative companys to defend itself against the bottomless well of 
government. This certainly does represent me. There are many 
millions of people who understand that Microsoft may at some point 
played too hard ball in this highly competiive industry and some 
reasonable price is to be paid, but thus far it has gone beyond 
reason. We are not, and do not want a socialist government that 
discourages ambition and incentive. Our government is supposed to 
work for all people even those in business that work hard to grow 
and keep people employed have not chosen to base themselves in any 
number of other countries sho would be eager to have them. Settle 
this thing now and reasonably. The sooner the better for both sides 
and our country.



MTC-00012082

From: Karl Van Blankenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice, Please proceed with settling 
the case with Microsoft. The United States has far more greater 
issues that it needs to focus on rather than continuing to pursue 
litigation against a U.S. company. I believe that the proposed 
settlement is fair and just. Please let us focus on the other 
pressing issues at hand to make this a better and safer place. Thank 
you, Karl Van Blankenburg



MTC-00012083

From: AL FRODERBERG
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:36pm
Subject: Settlement
    It is time to settle this case--the attorneys general have 
grandstanded long enough. I am tired of their political 
machinations. End it!



MTC-00012084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:38pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Dept of Justice and all but nine states have spoken. The 
Microsoft matter should now be settled as proposed. The actions of 
the minority (9 states) should not be allowed to overrule the 
actions of the majority. In these times of economic uncertainty, we 
have better things to do with our energy and funds than to drag out 
the Microsoft matter unnecessarily. H. Johnson, New Jersey



MTC-00012085

From: Edward W. Hackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop these never ending court cases. Settle the case and 
let MicroSoft go back to making the software we all need and use.--
------------ Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN 
Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com



MTC-00012086

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:44pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    My feelings on the remaining states holding out on the 
settlement reached,is one of unbelief. Microsoft and its products 
have never harmed me or anyone I know in any way whatsoever. For 
these holdout states to not settle on this fair agreement is not in 
anyones interest in this country. With the economy reeling and 
taxpayers dollars being wasted on further litigation is crazy. This 
company has done nothing but developed better products than the 
competition, which has benefited me and not harmed me in any way. I 
urge you to settle this litigation by accepting the tenative 
agreement reached, so this country can move along with innovating. 
Also this economy does not need anymore stumbling blocks. Thanks for 
letting me share my thoughts on this very important matter. I hope 
you choose to settle. Sincerely: Jeffrey D. Schmitt



MTC-00012087

From: Kenneth Bond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    I would like to say how much Microsoft has added to my life by 
providing programs and software that an older person like myself can 
use and depend on and I think at a very reasonable price. I would 
hate to see all the progress Microsoft has made be destroyed in 
favor of competitor's that are trying to destroy Microsoft. 
Microsoft has brought the whole world into the high tech arena which 
has created millions of jobs and economic advances which will 
probably lead to many more. So I say lets not kill this horse 
because we have all benefited from it.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Bond
    CC:Kenneth Bond



MTC-00012088

From: Larry Clason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:45pm
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I respectfully request that the Department of Justice not appeal 
the revised proposed settlement in the (Subject) case. I feel that 
further contest of the legalities and punishments would be a further 
waste of everyone's tax dollars--money that could be much better 
spent by each one of us to increase the quality of life for 
ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. Most sincerely,
    Larry F. Clason
    [email protected]
    112 N. Mills Street, #207
    Madison, Wisconsin 53715



MTC-00012089

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:47pm
Subject: Leave them alone.
    It is my desire that you simply leave Microsoft alone. They have 
done so much for 


[[Page 25536]]


our world, the computer age, and advances beyond 
belief. If they make money by doing so, then so what? Doesn't 
evryone need money? On top of that, they are giving back to our 
society, not only with unimaginable feats in techology, but through 
monetary gifts as well. GO! MICROSOFT!! Let's clean out our own 
closets, then maybe our views will be clearer. Peggy Youngblood



MTC-00012090

From: Paul Goetsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The time has come for all the states that are holding out to 
either settle or have it done for them. We have spent too much time 
and tax payers money already on a case that never should have 
started to begin with. . Please get off the dime. PR Goetsch



MTC-00012091

From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please get off Bill Gate's back, & go catch some terrorists 
instead!!!!



MTC-00012092

From: raven3001
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's sad with all the other things going on like the WTC, 
recession, and war, that people are so petty that they think they 
paid too much for a free browser. I think this anti-trust business 
has gone on too long and costing the tax payers too much money. I 
believe that this bogus lawsuit angst Microsoft is a bunch of money-
hungry, sleazy lawyers and showboating bureaucrats trying to justify 
their existence.
    Tired Of Hearing About small Petty Problems.
    J. C. Oost.



MTC-00012093

From: Pat Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 315
Belmont Street
Carbondale, PA 18407-0315
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It is considerate of Microsoft, as the dominant source of 
hardware and software, to open its doors to competitors. I realize 
that they have been in an antitrust settlement with the U.S. 
government for three years. So I am glad that they will have a fresh 
new start in software development. One way that Microsoft is 
providing their expertise in software development is by configuring 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs as well as 
their own. The interim release of Windows XP will ensure that 
computer makers, consumers, and software developers can promote non-
Microsoft software within Windows. Not only will this benefit the 
computer manufacturers, but it will give choice to the consumers as 
well.
    I am glad that the leading American company in software 
development will finally be released from the grip of this antitrust 
settlement. Now Microsoft can focus on doing what they do best, 
being innovative in software development. Thank you for your 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Collins
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00012094

From: Victor Hoover Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever it may concern.
    In my opinion, the legal action against Microsoft should never 
have gone to court, but since it has, it should be settled quickly 
with no further litigation's. I believe that court actions against 
the corp. of Microsoft is not in the best interest of the public.
    In contrast to what the competition would like the public to 
believe, I believe that Microsoft has done more than any similar 
business unit in making computer systems available, useful and 
affordable.
    Thanks
    Victor Hoover



MTC-00012095

From: Stuart Thiel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:00pm
Subject: Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK), etc.
    This is my opinion on what I have read. I am 3rd year University 
student in the field of Software Engineering and a part time 
software consultant, software designer.
    Regarding Sun's suggestions that the proposed civil action 
against Microsoft: ***
    1 Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that 
Microsoft was found to have illegally protected;
    2 Fails to remedy the injury done to the JavaTM technology 
community;
    3 Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to 
have done to Netscape Navigator and the browser market;
    4 Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, and instant messaging 
software into the monopoly Windows operating system;
    5 Is ambiguous and subject to manipulation by Microsoft because 
it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. ***
    I have little/no information regarding the first point. I would 
fully agree with the second point (being very interested in java 
developement). I would agree with the 3rd point, espescially 
considering Microsoft's habit of ignoring the majority of standards 
and modifying existing systems (Javascript) just enough that they 
have to be re-written to be IE specific (not to mention that they 
feel renaming it to DHTML and calling it a new language fixes that. 
. . ). I have some difficulty agreeing with the 4th point as it 
clearly indicates in the proposed action that OEM and others may 
remove icons of Microsoft stuff stated above and add non-Microsoft 
software. I would agree with the enforcement issue. A firmer/clearer 
stance should be taken regarding enforcement as Microsoft is large 
enough to ignore tiny barbs.
    With regards to the following sections of the proposed action 
(not properly quoted, but still getting the main idea): ***
    III.C.3
    Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from 
exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
    * 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.
    III.H.3
    1. 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 without first seeking confirmation from 
the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for an 
automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's 
configuration until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new 
Personal Computer. Microsoft shall not alter the manner in which a 
Windows Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's 
configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a 
new version of a Windows Operating System Product. ***
    Section III.C.3 seems to be saying that Microsoft may restrict 
OEMs from displaying a user interface completely dissimilar to that 
of Microsoft software. This is very wrong in that Microsoft then has 
control of the user interfaces developed, thus fortifying its 
monopoly position. I may have misunderstood this section, it seems 
ambiguous. I feel that it would be better to say that Microsoft has 
no right to restrict OEMs from using any software based on the user 
interface period.
    Section III.H.3 has a section that states Microsoft software may 
modify an OEM configuration without warning after 14 days from 
initial boot-up. This is is clearly a bad idea. Whether 1 day, 14 
days or 100 days from any point, software should not modify 
configurations of other software without warning (when automatically 
initiated) unless the original soft was intended to be updated in 
that manner possibly with specific intent to be modified by the 
modifying software exclusively or inclusively. Otherwise, we call 
the modifying software a virus. The exception to this, is the 
upgrading of OS or software that the modified software is based 
upon, in which case automatic modification of the original 
configuration should be allowed if it is necessary to continue the 
proper 


[[Page 25537]]


functionality of the software modified. Lastly, a clear 
definition needs to be made as to what the modification of a 
configuration is, as one could consider changing the order of icons 
a change in configuration given the existing proposed action (which 
would be false in my opinion).
    Thank you.
    Stuart Thiel



MTC-00012096

From: Bill Sharpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept the settlement in this case. No more 
taxpayer's money needs to be wasted in pursing this litigation 
further. Let the market and consumers control the fate of Microsoft, 
not the courts.
    William E. Sharpe
    1 Silver Oak Court
    Pooler, GA 31322



MTC-00012097

From: evelyn saunders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft SETTLEMENT
    I AGREE WITH MICROSOFT. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.



MTC-00012098

From: Al Wedekind
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get this settled and let Microsoft continue to do what 
they do best and that is to satisfy their customers. We think they 
are great!



MTC-00012099

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:09pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As a citizen of the US and a stockholder of Microsoft, I urge 
the Department of Justice to accept the terms of the settlement now 
on the table. It is our taxpayer dollars that pays for the 
litigation, it is our consumer dollars that pay for the products and 
it is our brains that choose the products that we want. In a country 
founded on the principals of equality and freedom, every company has 
a clear, even playing field, but only a few rise to the top. This is 
America, after all, and that is the reward of Democracy, but not of 
Socialism. I thank God all our voices can be heard.
    Lynda Wells
    311 E. 72nd St.
    NYC, NY 10021



MTC-00012100

From: Louis F. McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Without question, settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
litigation is in my best interest as well as the best interest of 
the rest of those who use personal computers.
    Louis F.McDonald
    4250 Lansdowne Dr.
    Atlanta, GA 30339-4615
    (770) 434-3816



MTC-00012101

From: JOHN CAMPBELL
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CAMPBELL
5040 N DESERT TORTOISE PL
TUCSON, az 85745
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    leave microsoft to the marketplace.we consumers are are 
perfectly capable of defending ourselves against predetory pricing 
and price fixing.
    Sincerely,
    JOHN CAMPBELL



MTC-00012103

From: Blair Marsteller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:15pm
Subject: The settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I believe the settlement pounded out which all but a few states 
have signed is good. Microsoft should not be subjected to further 
measures and the nine states should agree to the fair and reasonable 
settlement the DOJ and the other states have produced. Say no to 
further troubles and litigation. Let the reasonable settlement 
stand.
    Blair Marsteller



MTC-00012104

From: Zanetta Laskaris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following the litigation of DoJ against Microsoft 
for several years now, and as a concerned citizen I would like to 
voice my opinion that it is in the public interest of consumers that 
this case be settled as soon as possible rather than continue with 
further litigation.



MTC-00012105

From: Wallace Greene (MSLI)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-A GOOD THING!
    I am more than pleased that the United States Government has 
come to a settlement agreement with Microsoft. Our country certainly 
has more pressing matters than fighting an American company that we 
should all be proud of. A company that is innovative and energetic, 
to the benefit of so many.
    Thank you
    Wallace Greene
    This communication is strictly private and contains confidential 
information intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this 
communication by parties other than the intended recipient(s) is 
unauthorized. If you have received this communication in error and 
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or action taken is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful.



MTC-00012106

From: John Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:19pm
Subject: anti trust suit
    When are politicians going to get it? They are not in business 
to break all of us, they are going to far again and again. Tax 
payers and our daily Joe Nobody are going to find a way to get 
someone in office that will follow their lead and not what the 
parties want!
    John Manning
    [email protected]
    EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.



MTC-00012107

From: Bill Mcilveen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:24pm
Subject: Why don't you just leave Microsoft alone. These attorney 
generals should
    Why don't you just leave Microsoft alone. These attorney 
generals should concentrate on the problems of their own states. 
Chasing deep pockets so they can spend additional money on state 
pork projects (RE: Cigarette settlement) is a load of crap. The 
American consumer is bright enough to make their own decisions. The 
public would be better served if these guys would go after clowns 
like ENRON. Must be all of the graft is gone at that point.



MTC-00012108

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:25pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
    I am not a developer, I am a home user of a PC. I am concerned 
that Microsoft is starting to take advantage of not only the 
industry, but the public at large. I have been informed that 
Microsoft now has a mechanism in their Windows XP operating system 
which sends the registry back to Microsoft if the system is 
connected to the internet. Considering that I would guess that a 
conservative 90% of the pc's are running Microsoft operating systems 
and are connected to the internet, this is disconcerting to me. The 
registry includes everything about the hardware, the software you 
run, whether it be Microsoft applications or not and information 
about each user of the system. This is not only an unfair advantage 
for Microsoft in the marketspace, but an invasion of privacy. I know 
that not many systems are running Windows XP at this time, but that 
will change as Microsoft stops distributing and supporting Windows 
98 and ME.
    Please consider this while deciding what is fair to the American 
public.
    Kindest regards,
    Glenn Phillips



MTC-00012109

From: Shuryl A Potter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settement
    Department of Justice;


[[Page 25538]]


    My family along with many friends, beg you to vote in favor of 
Microsoft. We admire Microsoft for everything they stand for. The 
courts and their completion may see Mr. Bill Gates as a Butt head, 
but we the people view him as a Great businessperson, who created 
great, jobs, serves not only his community but contributes large 
amounts of money to many great causes throughout the world. Again, 
we sincerely beg the courts not to destroy Microsoft,one of the 
greatest corporations in America today.
    Shuryl A. Potter



MTC-00012110

From: Keith Bingaman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith A. Bingaman
119 Main Street
Lykens, Pennsylvania 17048
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to see the Microsoft antitrust case settle as soon 
as possible. I do not believe this case should have been brought 
against Microsoft in the first place. It is in the best interest of 
everyone that the Court approves the settlement as soon as possible. 
Microsoft has really gone far beyond what should be expected of them 
in the interest of bringing this case to a close. They have taken 
steps to make their servers operable with those of its competitors. 
They have also agreed not to impose any contractual restrictions on 
third parties that will require them to exclusively distribute or 
promote Microsoft products. These types of concessions will help 
ensure that no antitrust laws are violated. Settling this case will 
benefit the technology industry and consumers alike. Thank you for 
your efforts to bring this case to its resolution.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Bingaman cc: Senator Rick Santorum Representative George 
W. Gekas



MTC-00012111

From: mdonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to put this to rest for good and Finally.
    Miriam E Donaldson m
    [email protected]



MTC-00012112

From: Jesse Stence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft problem by helping the schools soon. 
Sincerely Jesse Stence



MTC-00012113

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:30pm
Subject: Micosoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am writing to inform you that hearing of your decision to 
settle with Microsoft brought me relief and pleasure .Our nation has 
endured enough of this and this settlement is a fair one. It is time 
to move on to more pressing issues .
    The complaintants should be thrilled with the concessions 
Microsoft has made and allo should look forward to putting their 
energies to the most productive causes.
    I urge you to promote and support this settlement and end this 
litigation.Thank You.
    Brian Grimm 8 Apache Drive Englishtown,New Jersey



MTC-00012114

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Whom It May Concern:
    Please settle this litigation as soon as possible.
    Marianne Montrose



MTC-00012115

From: WIN B ENDERS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Stop this endless and expensive litigation once and for all. 
Microsoft is the goose that lays golden eggs for our economy. Don't 
kill it!
    win enders



MTC-00012116

From: Walt Statkiewicz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Firstly, it was the consumer who gave Microsoft the monopoly 
through its choice of purchases when there was competition. Through 
their choice, the consumer essentially voted for a Microsoft 
dominant environment to simplify their computing needs. Without this 
populous consent, the consumer would be left to determine on their 
own whether some new software and / or hardware would work properly 
with their system. This is sometimes difficult for the experts let 
alone the individual who only wants to send and print emails.
    The consistency standards enabled the productivity gains of the 
consumers and fostered the growth of the American economy for the 
past ten years. The point here is that it was an active choice by 
the consumer and not a situation that only Microsoft could push 
their products down the consumer's throats. When the decision by the 
consumer was being made, alternatives were available that offered 
similar environments (e.g., IBM's OS2, Apple Computer's Macintosh, 
etc.). At that date in time, one could hardly argue that Microsoft 
was too large for someone like IBM to challenge. Yet Microsoft did 
challenge IBM and enabled innovation and productivity gains that 
formed the foundation for much of today's computing technology.
    Microsoft learns from its markets what the users desire, works 
at making the changes that users desire, and has become dependable 
at issuing updates that users desire. Without these three things, 
many people might recommend other software, but the other companies 
either do not or cannot provide these things which businesses depend 
upon. Indeed, many companies are having trouble maintaining their 
businesses because the competition is fierce and hard to deal with. 
Not because there is only one competitor (i.e., Microsoft) and you 
can't compete against them. Companies such as Adobe compete with 
Microsoft all the time and have been doing so for many years.
    You will note that Adobe follows the same things listed above as 
prerequisites for success: they learn from their markets what the 
users desire, they work at making the changes that users desire, and 
they are dependable at issuing updates that users desire. In other 
words, these companies provide comfort for the users and the future 
of computing.
    These are the notions that consumers use to make sure their work 
get's done. The essence of the arguments presented here is that the 
consumers are the ones who drive the industry and whenever 
innovation occurs, the consumers decide based on a set of business 
rules whether a company can compete or not. To think otherwise would 
be to deny that business and consumers are some idealists that have 
no justifications for their actions and can simply be manipulated 
through mass marketing. Such people would not survive for very long 
in today's fast paced global economy.
    Walter R. Statkiewicz
    218 Sivia St.
    N. Cape May, NJ, 08204



MTC-00012117

From: kitsten matson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:40pm
Subject: SETTELMENT.
January 14, 2002
    It make me very angry that ``The Justice Department'' continues 
to keep Microsoft in the courts. How many years does it take? How 
much does Microsoft have to give up? Remember this is the land of 
the free and where everyones dreams can come true, except when you 
don't like someone. It got so out of hand during ``The Clinton 
Administration'' Microsoft is a huge player in our economy and 
everyone knows what happened when Janet Reno and Co. went after 
them. Not many companies would be able to survive the length of time 
you have kept Microsoft in the courts.
    I would like to see the Justice Department go after fraud in the 
Government with as much determination as it has gone after 
Microsoft.
    SETTLE THIS SUIT!
    Sincerely, Kirsten Matson
    MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
Click Here



MTC-00012118

From: Robert Grauel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to settle the Microsoft antitrust case and move on. I 
fear greed is getting in the way of the good judgement of nine 
attorneys general.


[[Page 25539]]




MTC-00012119

From: Frank Harmuth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not appeal the Microsoft Settlement.
    Frank D. Harmuth
    1128 Sweet Spot Circle
    Morrisville, NC 27560
    e-mail addressd: [email protected]



MTC-00012120

From: hayho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do what is best for the economy and settle the suits 
against Microsoft.
    Thanks



MTC-00012121

From: Lloyd McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, The United States government needs to request Microsoft 
to maintain a data base of all bugs in Microsoft products and 
Microsoft fairly compensate people who discover any bugs in 
Microsoft products. The United States government needs to increase 
the punishment against Microsoft.
    [email protected]



MTC-00012122

From: Byron Stavrou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please quit punishing Microsoft. There is enough trouble in this 
world. Let's let one of our economy's strongest influences help 
right the ship. Market forces will dictate Microsoft's future.
    Byron Stavrou



MTC-00012123

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:54pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    PLEASE SETTLE THIS REDICULOUS ASSAULT ON THE BEST INNOVATIVE 
INSTITUTION IN THE USA (THAT WILL BE ATTACKED BY FOREIGN 
CORPORATIONS) BY AGREEING WITH THE MICROSOFT APPROACH TO ENDING THE 
LITIGATION AND MAKING MICROSOFT THE AMERICAN ANSWER TO THE 21ST 
CENTURY REGARDING COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND AMERICAN SURVIVAL IN THIS 
GLOBAL ECONOMY--
    FRANCIS A. L'ESPERANCE.JR. M.D.



MTC-00012124

From: KATHLEEN JENKINS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
KATHLEEN JENKINS
3315 CR 762
JONESBORO, AR 72401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The lawsuit against Microsoft was a 
stupid waste of our tax dollars. And it harmed investors in the 
high-tech industry, without giving us any benefit in return. It is 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending, to be ended. 
Consumers need to see competition in the marketplace, rather than in 
the courtroom. Competition creats better goods and services for the 
consumers, and MicrosSoft has done a great job of giving us what we 
want and need, at ever better prices. Let's get our government out 
of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of 
corporations.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Jenkins



MTC-00012125

From: charles jantho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    IT IS MY SINCERE AND EARNEST OPINION THAT THE MICROSOFT SUIT BE 
SETTLED IN ITS' FAVOR IN THE MAJOR PART AND IMPLEMENTED AT THE 
EARLIEST DATE.
    THANK YOU,
    CHARLES ROBERT JANTHO
    133 WELCOME ALLEY
    BALTIMORE, MD. 21201



MTC-00012126

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen, we have spent far to long on thwarting microsoft from 
moving forward with their innovations and resulting benefits to we 
consumers. The products that microsoft developed has enhanced my 
life significantly and at a price which I feel is fair. Continuing 
this case further only makes the lawyers in this country richer and 
we consumers/tax payers poorer financially and intelectually. Lets 
settle the bloody case and get on with life. yours truly.
    Harold P. Camicia



MTC-00012127

From: Bernard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Let us end the farce of competitors trying to enrich themselves 
with the Governments help. Microsoft has done no harm to anyone. It 
has helped us tremendously.
    The others can whine and cry and try and to tare Microsoft down 
for their own benefit. Please don't help them.
    Help Microsoft!
    End this Now!
    Thank you,
    B Gert Hollin



MTC-00012128

From: Edgar Gallardo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    In light of the ruling handed down by the court finding 
Microsoft guilty of monopolizing several aspects of software and 
operating systems, I wish to voice my hopes that your agency will 
punish the corporation.
    Fines and token apologies are not enough in my opinion, 
especially considering the vast amounts of revenue that the company 
has produced along with the powerful grip over countless businesses, 
home owners, even school districts. Significant restraints and 
reprimands should be levied against the large corporation.
    An idea gaining large acceptance within the technological 
community would be to standardize the Windows API code, which I 
believe would be a great step towards ensuring a more competitive 
market. Intellectual property is important and quite cherished in 
our society, but it is because of the great value placed on it that 
it must be the source of punishment for Microsoft.
    Considering the vast resources the company has at its disposal, 
fines and lawsuits are hardly going to prevent or even hinder their 
continued stranglehold on the market they so obviously dominate.
    Your duty is to prosecute those who violate the laws of the 
United States of America. If Microsoft was a first time offender, 
leniency would obviously come into play. However, they are in fact 
repeat offenders that have blatantly broken and scoffed at the laws 
in place to protect the greater population of society. I implore 
your agency to protect the consumers and competitors of Microsoft 
and force them to cooperate within our capitalist economy. We are 
driven by competition and market sharing, it is the core of our 
society. You are the best hope for society to topple the juggernaut.



MTC-00012129

From: jmorris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:00pm
Subject: Enough is Enough
    Why do we allow the Anti Trust action against Microsoft to drag 
on after it aws settled? You have made a deal to punish them and 
that's enough. The States continuing anti-trust action IMO have an 
anti business agenda or get a very successful business at any costs. 
Microsoft did wrong, got punishment and it's way past the time to 
move on.



MTC-00012130

From: ed barry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this matter as soon as possible. The only beneficiaries 
to ongoing litigation are the lawyers.
    Respectfully,
    Edward L. Barry



MTC-00012131

From: Ron Authier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those involved; It is time to agree on this settlement and 
move on to other matters much more important to the taxpayers of 
this country.


[[Page 25540]]

    Yours truly,
    Ronald G. Authier
    23 Cote Rd
    Monson, Ma 01057-9763



MTC-00012132

From: Bernard H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end this, Now!
    Microsoft should not be hurt to help Competitors who want to 
enrich themselves with the Governments help. Myself, my Companies 
all are very happy with our Microsoft Products. We wont even do 
business with the sniveling cowards who want the Government to 
enrich them by tearing down Microsoft. So please stop this now. More 
important things need to be dealt with.



MTC-00012133

From: Bill Marshfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:05pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I for one do not understand why the Federal Government wants to 
meddle around in private business when they can not even run the 
Government. What makes them think that they know how to run a 
business. If anyone of them could they would be in business where 
they would control their own destiny, not sponging off of the people 
of the United States. If these other companies cannot compete then 
they should get out of the business.
    As I heard the other day. From the Democrats point of view it is 
scandalous for the White House to let Enron go under but OK for the 
House and Senate to attempt to put Microsoft out of business. Fed's 
leave Microsoft alone and let them do their business the way they 
know how.
    William E. Marshfield
    20 Fox Glove Ct.
    Reno, NV 89511



MTC-00012134

From: Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:06pm
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a consumer I feel Microsoft has damaged, prevented and 
delayed innovation in the computer industry. Microsoft's dominance 
(technical monopoly) severely limits competition and innovation. 
Even though I am a member of the Microsoft Freedom to Innovate 
Network, I still feel changes must be brought about to promote the 
growth and innovation that Microsoft's monopoly position is 
limiting. I don't feel I can give a adequate description of the 
complex and integrated relations within the technical industry and 
computer technique itself in this email. but as a consumer I urge 
the justice department to act to limit Microsoft's control of the 
software marketplace. I don't know if I should list the blue screen, 
Dr. Watson, crashes, of other issues. I don't know if the recent 
``market control'' exhibited with the release of XP and ``2000'' 
product version has been presented in this case. If not please let 
me present a consumer who is being forced to ``choice Microsoft'' 
not because the products are good, but because they are the only 
ones available, because ``Microsoft owns the market place.
    I can't resist giving one example in a recent book published by 
Microsoft Press ``Microsoft Visio Version 2002 Inside Out'' by 
Nanette J. Eaton; ISBN 0-7356-1285-4. On page 11 under the title 
``Features Deleted from Visio'' . . .some tools, . . .have been 
removed from Visio 2002 . . . In some cases, Microsoft plans to make 
an add-on or tool available as a download . . . In general Microsoft 
has consolidated it's control. While Microsoft speaks of it's 
innovation, most is not all Microsoft's products and ideas were 
copied from a want-to-be competitor or bought. Apple, SUN, Netscape 
all are reminisces of good companies now playing second fiddle in 
Microsoft land. If this includes breaking the company up, making the 
core code open source, I can't say, but one or more activities 
should be implemented. Please continue with the case against 
Microsoft, don't let Microsoft buy of the government. The justice 
department is the last hope.
    Thank you
    Keith Elkin
    Keith Elkin
    1800 Beech CT
    Frederick, MD 21701.
    SN 229-62-4368



MTC-00012135

From: ateepee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    May I urge you to settle the Microsoft case as soon as is 
possible. From my viewpoint, Microsoft has provided great benefit to 
the consumer, and all the anti-trust actions are a grave injustice 
to Microsoft. I am convinced that the growth of the PC market and 
business is largely due to the fact that Microsoft provided a 
'standard' software which enabled all of us to work on the same 
wave-length. Let's continue to have America reward those that 
provide the most benefit to the nation---not arbitrarily reduce 
everyone to the 'lowest common denominator'.
    Thank you.
    T. P. Higgins,



MTC-00012136

From: maryasara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    So settle it already.



MTC-00012137

From: Glenn Sproule
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:09pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    It is my opinion that the antitrust suite should be settled 
without further investigation or delay in which would be in the best 
interests of the consumers.
    W.G.Sproule MD
    California
    CC:GLENN SPROULE



MTC-00012138

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe it is in the public interest that all government 
entities drop their current law suits against Microsoft. Our 
government, both state and federal, should not prosecute and 
persecute people and organizations for being successful. If they 
have violated the law; then enforce the law. If they have not; then 
get the governments hand and the lawyers hands out of their pocket.
    Respectfully,
    Marvin L. Orr
    P.O. Box 63
    Moreland, Idaho 83256



MTC-00012139

From: Kathryn Mills
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Mills
3275 West 128 St.
Cleveland, OH 44111
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    It is time that we put the litigation against Microsoft to rest. 
Enough of the taxpayers' dollars have been squandered. This trial 
must be over. The marketplace, not the courtroom, should now decide 
how Microsoft performs. We need to unshackle Microsoft so that they 
can again be innovative and creative in the hi-tech economy . . . 
moving freely and competitively. The consumers need it . . . the 
investors certainly need to know that the hi-tech industry is again 
on steady ground.
    Let America do what America does best in the marketplace . . . 
allow an economy to grow freely and creatively . . . . this will not 
happen if we continue to drag this company, and others, through the 
courts. Enough is enough!
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn C. Mills



MTC-00012140

From: Rick Girdner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am sure everyone is hammering you guys over the Microsoft 
settlement. My main concern is that the way Microsoft wants to pay 
their debt to society is through a giant sales campaign to the 
schools. I am so tired of people in Washington doing crappy jobs on 
every front, then saying they are doing it for the good of the 
CHILDREN. This is the wrong settlement for America. Have their 
executives go out and pick up trash if they want to do some real 
good things, but do not let them infiltrate the schools with sales 
pitches.
    Thank you,


[[Page 25541]]


    Rick Girdner,
    Concerned Taxpayer



MTC-00012141

From: Tracy Pipkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    Please break up the Microsoft monopoly . . . . as an IT 
professional, they have caused much grief over the last 10-15 years.
    Thanks.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012142

From: Arsenio Calle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the good of the Us and of our economy I humbly ask that this 
case be settled as soon as possible. The Us needs less litigation 
and more innovation to get the economy going again. This litigation 
is only helpeing the economy of the lawyers involved in the case.
    Respectfully,
    Arsenio Calle



MTC-00012143

From: Bob Condie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11'18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been involved with the computer days since its inception. 
Let Microsoft play in the free market. There products are great and 
have set the standard and platform for the future that no other 
company could have. Others can compete with the latest and greatest 
technology.
    Bob Condie
    Executive Director of Engineering
    (303) 652-3464



MTC-00012144

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:21pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I believe that this matter ought to be settled immediately. It 
is a drain on the economy, and if one polled the many millions of 
users of msft products, I believe it would be difficult to justify 
that we were overcharged for an operating system that we freely 
chose (over Apple or Linux), and that we use every day, with 
additional features added at no extra charge. I still remember that 
I had to forgo getting Netscape because I did not want to spend 
hundreds of extra dollars--in the end, I got it free from msft.



MTC-00012145

From: Warren Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough litigation already! Settle the Microsoft suit and let's 
get back to the business of innovation. This was never about the 
interests of the consumer but only about the pathetic attempt of 
competitors to do in the court room what they couldn't do in the 
market place. As I believe the secretary of the US Treasury said of 
the Enron collapse: That's the genius of the free market system; you 
have winners and losers. In this case, only sore losers who 
convinced enough people so that years later we're still suffering 
the effects of this ill timed and poorly managed suit. Witness the 
collapse of the high tech market. We, the consumers of high tech 
goods and services, are the losers.
    Best wishes,
    Rev. Warren F. Taylor
    607 E Mulberry Ave
    Porterville, CA 93257
    559-781-0266 the
    So we row on . . . boats against the current-- f. scott 
fitzgerald



MTC-00012146

From: Steve T
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam.
    My name is Steve Tripp, and I live in a small town in Iowa and 
work at a local ISP. I will not pretend to know the legal minutia of 
the case, but have been keeping abreast of the situation through 
online news and newsgroups. I have used Microsoft products at work, 
not because they are the best or even good, but because there is no 
other choice. The software market did not start out as a monopoly, 
and the best man did not win. But as someone who works with 
computers every day, and would even if I did not get paid for it, I 
know who the losers are. . . we are. What truly amazes me is 
watching supposed experts debate whether or not Microsoft as a 
monopoly has hurt the industry. As a Network/Internet technician in 
Algona, Iowa I deal with Microsoft products every day at work, but 
will not have them in my home. I know they have hurt the industry, 
and I know their products are not the best that could be on the 
market. The Microsoft stranglehold on OS and application software 
needs to be relaxed, and Microsoft will not do so on its own.
    Thank you for your time.
    Steve Tripp
    505 N. Main St.
    Algona, IA 50511



MTC-00012147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not appeal.



MTC-00012148

From: Curtis Killorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attention: Renata B. Hesse
    I wish to comment concerning the up-coming settlement of the 
corporation of Microsoft. Under the federal law of the Tunney Act, I 
believe I have this right. In my thirty years as a working tax 
paying citizen I have never had a good experience with the products 
of Microsoft, my exposure is as follows:
    I was a Composition Manager for the largest publication company 
in central Colorado for six years and found the software to be 
cumbersome and very difficult to carry out our daily work load 
without the constant problems which seemed to be inherent with this 
product. As technology progressed and the internet become much more 
important, our work load and complexity doubled. The experience of 
networking servers and work stations together with Microsoft 
programs required constant maintenance and a continual bills for 
technical support and training.
    As a owner of the largest restaurant in Chaffee county, 
Colorado, I have inherited a point of sales system which runs on 
Microsoft. I have spent over $120,000 on a networked system which is 
at best faulty and at the worst useless. This system has been the 
source of constant frustration. The system promises great efficiency 
and productivity to help enhance the work load of a restaurant, but 
in turn has become the signal largest liability we have to contend 
with.
    On a personal note: All the talk of Microsoft has been that they 
the ``great innovators'' and ``revolutionary designers'', well, I 
just don't see it. If this settlement allows Microsoft to ``give'' 
their leftover products to our children, Microsoft will only be 
given an even greater advantage to propagate their product. Here's 
an idea: why not have Microsoft pay Apple to give their new iMacs to 
the poorest schools in America.
    Curtis Killorn
    Owner
    [email protected]
    Check us out on-line @ www.windmillonline.com
    The Windmill Restaurant
    720 E. Rainbow Blvd.
    Salida, CO 81201
    719-539-3594 fx 719-539-3479



MTC-00012149

From: Simon Selitser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer and as a developer I do not believe that proposed 
final judgment (by DOJ and nine states) is in a public interest. I 
believe that this settlement will do little to restore competition 
or prevent Microsoft from monopoly behavior. Far more reaching in 
preventing Microsoft from abusing its monopoly are remedies proposed 
by nine states and District of Columbia and, if adapted, will 
protected the public interest.
    Simon I. Selitser, Ph.D.
    President,
    TimeDomain CVD, Inc.
    470 Division St.
    Campbell, CA 95008



MTC-00012150

From: Ray Hix
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Hix
209 W Troy Street
Dothan, Al 36303
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a


[[Page 25542]]


serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Hix



MTC-00012151

From: Stan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't you think you have spent enough of the tax payers hard 
earned money.
    It is time to settle.
    Stanley R. Kneppar
    8109 Hibiscus Circle
    Tamarac, Florida 33321-2134
    (954) 720-0413



MTC-00012152

From: R. Ronald Corbett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
R. Ronald Corbett
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, Fl 34471
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    It's time to leave Microsoft alone, to allow that big company to 
get back to producing good products and creating jobs for the 
American workers. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars 
and was a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. 
Consumers should see competition in the marketplace, rather than the 
courtroom.
    Most Americans thought the federal government should not have 
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like 
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating 
better products for consumers, instead of wasting valuable resources 
on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    R. Ronald Corbett



MTC-00012153

From: Cy Rayburn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cy Rayburn
p o Box 83
Gibbon , NE 68840
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Cy Rayburn



MTC-00012154

From: Ken DeJonge
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken DeJonge
2911 52nd SW.,
Grandville, MI 49418
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. 
Sincerely, Ken DeJonge



MTC-00012155

From: Jane Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Smith
27259 Hedge Rd
Albemarle, NC 28001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Smith



MTC-00012156

From: Karl Hanson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karl Hanson


[[Page 25543]]


76 Drew Ave.
Manchester, NH 03104
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Hanson



MTC-00012157

From: Don Bates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: Having been a Microsoft Windows 
user for over a decade, I would like to take a moment to go on 
record supporting the recent settlement reached between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice. In my opinion Microsoft has been a 
target of unfair criticism over the years. Sure, as a Windows user 
I've had my share of headaches but I feel that overall the product 
is reasonably priced and a valuable addition to my lifestyle. I am 
pleased that the three-year-old antitrust suit against Microsoft is 
now over and being put to rest.
    You are well aware of the terms of the settlement where 
Microsoft agreed to not enter into any agreements forcing any third 
party to distribute or promote any Windows technology exclusively. 
Personally, I'm pleased to see that Microsoft is being forced to 
turn over intellectual property to its competitors. This allows for 
software that is more compatible with Windows to be produced and 
allows for competition.
    All in all, I am happy with the settlement because it is going 
to be beneficial to the American economy, the tech industry, and 
competition and in the end the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Bates,
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00012158

From: Kenneth Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Brown
PO Box 234
Windermere, Fl 34786
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth W Brown



MTC-00012159

From: Lynn Sant
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynn Sant
P.O. Box 329
Preston, ID 83263-0329
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn Sant



MTC-00012160

From: Ted Piatt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ted Piatt
3403 Fox Lake Rd.
Wooster, Oh 44691
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Piatt



MTC-00012161

From: David S
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David S Campbell
Vanceboro, NC 28586-8055
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a 


[[Page 25544]]


serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Campbell



MTC-00012162

From: G. MARIC
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
G. MARIC
113 Crestwood Avenue
Branchburg, NJ 08876-3911
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    G. Maric



MTC-00012163

From: Robert Cave
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Cave
4953 B Ave
Marcus, IA 51035-7009
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Cave



MTC-00012164

From: David Houk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Houk
217 Cedarwood Dr.
Madison, In 47250
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Houk



MTC-00012165

From: John Gerber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Gerber
698 S. Cscade Dr.
Woodburn, OR 97071-3022
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John Gerber



MTC-00012166

From: David Tiry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Tiry
217 May St.
Rockland, Wi 54653
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:


[[Page 25545]]


    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Tiry



MTC-00012167

From: William Peteet
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Peteet
2024 Fordham
Denton, Tx 76201
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    William Peteet



MTC-00012168

From: John Mackey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mackey
3520 Scenic Dr
Redding, Ca 96991
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John E Mackey



MTC-00012169

From: Susan Blevins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Blevins
P.O. Box 162
Nashville, GA 31639
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Blevins



MTC-00012170

From: Willis Gray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Willis Gray
2218 Graystone Drive
Sumter, SC 29150
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Willis T. Gray



MTC-00012171

From: John Giesey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Giesey
203 Galway Dr.
Niceville, FL 32578-2377
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW


[[Page 25546]]


Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John Giesey



MTC-00012172

From: Gary Stolp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Stolp
1218 Boston Street
Muskogee, OK 74401
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gary C Stolp



MTC-00012173

From: David M. Holly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David M. Holly
1211 Shady Lane
Tecumseh, MI 49286
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David M. Holly



MTC-00012174

From: patsy Rowzee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patsy Rowzee
P.O. Box 323
Slagle, La 71475
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Patsy Rowzee



MTC-00012175

From: Betty Lloyd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Lloyd
145 Valley Dr
Bridgeport, WV 26330
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Betty M Lloyd



MTC-00012176

From: Tracey Sigle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tracey Sigle
5303 Stockwell
Lincoln, NE 68506
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 25547]]


    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tracey Sigle



MTC-00012177

From: Kennyth Long
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kennyth Long
928 Dove Lane
Louisville, KY 40213-1322
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kennyth Long



MTC-00012178

From: Lynne Piper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lynne Piper
8015 Chorale Ct
Houston, TX 77040
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lynne Piper



MTC-00012179

From: James Lucas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Lucas
11108 Church Rd.
Ellsworth, MI 49729
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James Lucas



MTC-00012180

From: David HArold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David HArold
PO box 3465
Mount Airy, nc 27030
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    DAvid Harold



MTC-00012181

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:36pm
Subject: msft settlement
    We common people depend on the developers to make things easy 
for us. If there was not Windows, millions of people could never use 
a computer. Apple was out there for yrs., with a graphical user 
interface (GUI) but it took Windows which was fairly priced at about 
80 dollars, to unlock the many millions of users nowadays-- IT IS 
NOT 


[[Page 25548]]

BECAUSE WE HAVE NO CHOICE------WE CHOSE Windows over IBM OS2, We 
chose Windows over Linux, and over Apple, and especially over UNIX 
and Xenix. Now there is a monopoly--if u were a physician, in 1990, 
there was absoutely no softwaware other than UNIX/Xenix--and it cost 
thousands of dollars,and could only run certain types of 
applications . Please, please, please make this stupid lawsuit go 
away!!!!!!!!!!



MTC-00012182

From: John Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Moore
22340 Bracketts Rd.,
Shorewood, MN 55331
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Moore



MTC-00012183

From: Walter Kubli
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Kubli
300 Solari Rd.
Coos Bay, OR 97420
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Kubli



MTC-00012184

From: Glenn Dobson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn Dobson
2203 Palmersville Hwy-89
Dresden, TN 38225
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Dobson



MTC-00012185

From: R Keith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
R Keith
1146 Millers Mill Road
Stockbridge, GA 30281-4712
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Randy Keith



MTC-00012186

From: Jerry Franks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Franks
2353 Magnolia Dr
Little Elm, TX 75068
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and 


[[Page 25549]]


losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry L Franks



MTC-00012187

From: Robert Bubala
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Bubala
1103 E. Miller St.
Griffith, IN 46319
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Bubala



MTC-00012188

From: Edward Citak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Citak
6216 Anaconda St.
Las Vegas, Nv 89108-3926
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Edward J. Citak



MTC-00012189

From: Jack Russell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Russell
143 Adobe Court
Weatherford, TX 76087
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Jack Russell



MTC-00012190

From: David Alvar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Alvar
7727-236th St SW
Edmonds, WA 98036
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David M. Alvar



MTC-00012191

From: Sandi Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandi Johnson
3182 Quail Dr
Deltona, Fl 32738
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.


[[Page 25550]]


    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sandi Johnson



MTC-00012192

From: Gary Guptill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Guptill
P O Box 1
Springfield, SD 57062-0001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Guptill



MTC-00012193

From: Allen Palmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allen Palmer
901 Easton Place
Dallas, TX 75218-2347
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Palmer



MTC-00012194

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The US and State governments continued action against Microsoft 
is ridiculous and a total waste of our taxpayers money. Microsoft is 
one of the greatest companies in the US and has produced fantastic 
products that no other software company can. When we have so much 
crime and criminal activities within companies (e.g. Enron) why are 
we continuing to punish success. Stop prosecuting Microsoft now!
    Nigel Lander Superintendent CIS SAP Project Manager
    Samref Refinery, Yanbu, Saudi Arabia Phone: +966-4-396-4590



MTC-00012195

From: Ed Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ed Johnson
9541 Silver Spur Lane
Highlands Ranch, CO 80130
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Johnson



MTC-00012196

From: Kendall Funk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kendall Funk
200 Aspen St. Apt. #23
Clayton, NM 88415
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kendall Funk



MTC-00012197

From: Carol Rowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Rowe
102 W Railroad Box 366
Lake Park, IA 51347-0366
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken 

[[Page 25551]]


up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Rowe



MTC-00012198

From: art selhorn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
art selhorn
3604 McCormick St . SE
olympia, wa 98501
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Art Selhorn



MTC-00012199

From: Kim Stowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kim Stowe
5407 59th Place NE
Marysville, WA 98270-9016
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kim Stowe



MTC-00012200

From: Rex Shinholt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Shinholt
8885 E 400N
Van Buren, IN 46991
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    The Shinholts



MTC-00012201

From: Betty Grimm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Grimm
922 Sugar Hollow Rd.
Apollo, Pa 15613-8007
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Betty R,Grimm



MTC-00012202

From: Sally Young
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sally Young
2700 Highway 54
Moreland, GA 30259
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting 

[[Page 25552]]


valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sally Young



MTC-00012203

From: Roy Hamilton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roy Hamilton
230 SE 2nd Street
Gresham, OR 97080
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Hamilton



MTC-00012204

From: Ira Paul
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ira Paul
18495 NW 78th Avenue
Hialeah, FL 33015-2704
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ira J. Paul



MTC-00012205

From: Michael Fry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Fry
229 Southport Dr
Newton, KS 67114-5429
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Fry



MTC-00012206

From: John O'Brien
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John O'Brien
68 Lyford Drive
Tiburon, ca 94920-1715
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    J.J. O'Brien



MTC-00012207

From: Lawrence Gold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Gold
880 Westmont Dr.
Chico, CA 95926-7761
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. 


[[Page 25553]]

With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    L. Gene Gold



MTC-00012208

From: Oliver Arnold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Oliver Arnold
1252 N. Hazelton Drive
Chandler, AZ 85226-1333
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. The 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Perry Arnold



MTC-00012209

From: Tom Fisher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Fisher
6931 Azalea lane
Dallas, TX 75230
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dr Tom Fisher MD BSEE



MTC-00012210

From: Harold Cantley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Cantley
513 Dumas st.
Watson, AR 71674
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harold Cantley



MTC-00012211

From: Jim Zitek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Zitek
5785 Hyland Courts Dr
Bloomington, MN 55447
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James Zitek



MTC-00012212

From: James Huspek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Huspek
PO Box 893
Jackson, WY 83001
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 


[[Page 25554]]



government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    James P. Huspek



MTC-00012213

From: Linda Fitzhugh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Fitzhugh
2207 Lytham Lane
Katy, TX 77450
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Fitzhugh



MTC-00012214

From: Sharon Kellogg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Kellogg
RR 1 Box 774
Shinglehouse, PA 16748
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Kellogg



MTC-00012215

From: Wanda Trapp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wanda Trapp
Rt. 4, Box 327
McAlester, OK 74501
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wanda Trapp



MTC-00012216

From: Robert Owens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Owens
408 West Jefferson
Cole Camp, MO 65325
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Owens



MTC-00012217

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pierce Mills
Rt. 3, Box 108-3
Lake City, FL 32025-9424
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. 


[[Page 25555]]


With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Pierce Mills



MTC-00012218

From: Lia Olivieri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lia Olivieri
31 N. 3rd Street
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lia Olivieri



MTC-00012219

From: Steven Svec
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Svec
PO Box 552
Chillicothe, MO 64601-0552
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Steven T. Svec



MTC-00012220

From: Stanley Burris
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley Burris
P.O. Box 368
Keystone Heights, FL 32656
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Stan Burris



MTC-00012221

From: Barbara King
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara King
7311 Oak Hill Dr.
Sylvania, OH 43560
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara King



MTC-00012222

From: Mikel Conner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mikel Conner
12616 Darryl Dr.
Buda, TX 78610-2572
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.


[[Page 25556]]


    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mikel W. Conner



MTC-00012223

From: Joyce Oberly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Oberly
97 East Bethany Road
Womelsdorf, PA 19567
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce M. Oberly



MTC-00012224

From: Dorothy Rush
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Rush
5965 Happy Pines Drive
Foresthill, CA 95631
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Rush



MTC-00012225

From: Richard Ellis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Ellis
1072 Hayes Ave
West Liberty, IA 52776
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Ellis



MTC-00012226

From: Tom Hill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Hill
10839 Hortense Street
N. Hollywood, CA 91602
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Hill, E.A.



MTC-00012227

From: Alfonse De Marco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfonse De Marco
3-7 Atlanta Court
Freehold, NJ 07728
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better 


[[Page 25557]]


products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alfonse De Marco



MTC-00012228

From: Gregg E Finley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregg E Finley
1386 Rockdale St
Upland, CA 91784-7422
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gregg E Finley



MTC-00012229

From: Jay Pattiz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jay Pattiz
102 Cottonwood Close
Warrensburg, MO 64093
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Pattiz



MTC-00012230

From: Frank Murray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Murray
618 Avenue B
Trevose, PA 19053
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Murray



MTC-00012231

From: Michael Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Moore
5309 Round Prairie
Shawnee, KS 66226
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michael E. Moore



MTC-00012232

From: Timothy Sawyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Sawyer
P.O. Box 278
Hudgins, VA 23076
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into 


[[Page 25558]]


the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy P. Sawyer



MTC-00012233

From: Kenneth G. Loeb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth G. Loeb
434 7th St
Jesup, IA 50648
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Microsoft Settlement: The 
Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth G. Loeb



MTC-00012234

From: Lisa Cahill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lisa Cahill
1615 W. Blue Springs Ave.
Orange City, FL 32763
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lisa M. Cahill



MTC-00012235

From: George Rush
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Rush
534 W. Chisholm St.
Sanford, NC 27330
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    George B. Rush



MTC-00012236

From: Clara Reese
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clara Reese
4006 132nd St. E.
Tacoma, WA 98446-1938
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Clara Reese



MTC-00012237

From: Maurice Knudsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maurice Knudsen
4428 Main Street
Elk Horn, IA 51531
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken 


[[Page 25559]]


up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice J. Knudsen



MTC-00012238

From: David Sheehan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Sheehan
1208 Wine Spring Lane
Baltimore, MD 21204
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David J Sheehan



MTC-00012239

From: Robert Hartsell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hartsell
RR 2, Box 18
Lockwood, MO 65682-9601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert N. Hartsell



MTC-00012240

From: John Beasley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Beasley
319 E. Thompson Ln.
Nashville, TN 37211-2663
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John W. Beasley



MTC-00012241

From: George Isaacs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Isaacs
1858 Middlebury Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    George U Isaacs



MTC-00012242

From: Barry Stephens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Stephens
37 Gray Lodge Rd
Kittery, ME 03904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.


[[Page 25560]]


    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barry D. Stephens



MTC-00012243

From: martin guerra
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
martin guerra
1606 Arkansas Ave
Killeen, TX 76541
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    martin v. guerra



MTC-00012244

From: Fred Stacey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Stacey
9309 Habersham Drive
Louisville, KY 40242-2309
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Stacey



MTC-00012245

From: Donna Soares
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Soares
3704 Coco lane
North Highlands, Ca 95660
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Donna Soares



MTC-00012246

From: Glenna Potts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenna Potts
110 Marina Dr. #13
Needles, CA 92363-3717
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Glenna Potts



MTC-00012247

From: Cynthia Knight
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cynthia Knight
1982 McGirr Road
Ashton, IL 61006-9547
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the 


[[Page 25561]]


courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Cynthia Knight



MTC-00012248

From: Charles Rowe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Rowe
102 W Railroad Box 366
Lake Park, IA 51347-0366
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Rowe



MTC-00012249

From: Perry Staley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Staley
411 Orchard Street
Ironton, OH 45638-1166
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Perry L. Staley



MTC-00012250

From: George Kelder
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Kelder
4012 El Norte Rd.
Cameron Park, Ca 95682
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    George Kelder



MTC-00012251

From: Nile Gomez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nile Gomez
220 Meadow Lane, #D11
Secaucus, NJ 07094-4319
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nile Gomez



MTC-00012252

From: Andy Hatle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andy Hatle
22827 Muscupiabe Dr.
San Bernardino, Ca 92405
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be 


[[Page 25562]]


over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Andy Hatle



MTC-00012253

From: Joy Wilson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joy Wilson
3260 Keith Bridge Rd. #270
Cumming, GA 30041
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joy Wilson



MTC-00012254

From: Terrence Moore
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Terrence Moore
102 Recreation Dr.
Baden, Pa 15005
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Terrence M Moore



MTC-00012255

From: Lillie Price
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lillie Price
7815 CHIPPOKES ROAD
RICHMOND, VA 23881-9335
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lil Price



MTC-00012256

From: JAMES HIBBS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JAMES HIBBS
2504 south cheryl ct.
veradale, WA 99037
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    JAMES C HIBBS



MTC-00012257

From: Jennifer Terhune
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennifer Terhune
3938 Lott Ave.
Corpus Christi, TX 78410-6033
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech 


[[Page 25563]]


industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Terhune



MTC-00012258

From: Jean Freeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Freeman
413 Columbia Ave.
Lumberton, NC. 28358
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Freeman



MTC-00012259

From: Dwaine F. Keck
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dwaine F. Keck
321 Fox Rd.
Lexington, OH 44904-9337
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dwaine F. Keck



MTC-00012260

From: Kevin McElroy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin McElroy
24 Brushy Ridge Court
Plum, PA 15239-1140
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin McElroy



MTC-00012261

From: Christy Perez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christy Perez
3824 Jarrett Dr.
North Tonawanda, NY 14120
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Christy Perez



MTC-00012262

From: Betty Wyhowanec
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty Wyhowanec
32 West Main Street
Vergennes, VT 05491
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a 


[[Page 25564]]


serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Betty L. Wyhowanec



MTC-00012263

From: Charles Huelsmann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Huelsmann
8321 N. Pocono Dr.
Citrus Springs, FL 34434
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Huelsmann



MTC-00012264

From: Ed Schulz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ed Schulz
7643 Wachtel Way
Citrus Heights,, CA 95610
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Schulz



MTC-00012265

From: John Mack, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mack, Jr.
5254 S. Riverview Circle
Homosassa , Fl 34448-3629
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John Mack Jr.



MTC-00012266

From: Sallie Pierdolla
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sallie Pierdolla
5232 FM 2538
Marion, , TX 78124
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sallie Pierdolla, Texas, Bush Country



MTC-00012267

From: Robert P. Hanrahan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert P. Hanrahan
7268 Evans Mill Road
McLean, VA 22101
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:


[[Page 25565]]


    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert P. Hanrahan



MTC-00012268

From: Joseph Wojtowicz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Wojtowicz
1390 Northfield Drive
Mineral Ridge, OH 44440-9420
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph T. Wojtowicz



MTC-00012269

From: Gerald Kotyuk
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Kotyuk
2300 Orleans Ave
Marietta, GA 30062-7214
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald and Debbie Kotyuk



MTC-00012270

From: Alan De Ville
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan De Ville
7111 Tuckahoe Rd.
Williamson, NY 14589
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alan De Ville



MTC-00012271

From: Rex Wilson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rex Wilson
912 Pavillion Street
Dallas, TX 75204-5513
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rex Wilson, LCol, USMC Ret



MTC-00012272

From: Michael (Mick) Orton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael (Mick) Orton
1099 D Street, Suite 205
San Rafael, CA 94901
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530


[[Page 25566]]


    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Orton



MTC-00012273

From: Scott Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Johnson
6003 Westbourne Place
Centreville, VA 20120-1865
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Alan Johnson



MTC-00012274

From: Hal Scoggins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hal Scoggins
2807 Jackson St.
Houston, TX 77004-1242
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Hal Scoggins



MTC-00012275

From: David Jacobson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Jacobson
700 Norcova Dr.
Chesapeake, VA 23320
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Jacobson



MTC-00012276

From: Edward Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Smith
130 Somerset Drive
Brooklyn, MI 49230
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Edward R. Smith



MTC-00012277

From: Thomas Zamrok
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Zamrok
4805 Transit Road #1808
Depew, NY 14043-4904
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:


[[Page 25567]]


    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas P. Zamrok



MTC-00012278

From: Jennifer Freeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennifer Freeman
226 Wilson Dr.
Summerville, SC 29483-3032
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer M. Freeman



MTC-00012279

From: William Signorile
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Signorile
2360 Hemlock Farms
Hawley, Pa 18428
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kathy & Bill Signorile



MTC-00012280

From: Donald McGee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald McGee
545 Hidden Creek Drive
Merritt Island, FL 32952
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Donald D. McGee








MTC-00012281

From: Frances Colvin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frances Colvin
323 Bailey Blvd
Tahlequah, OK 74464-9261
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Frances and Charles Colvin








MTC-00012282

From: C. Mack Powell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Mack Powell
1437 N. Easrman Rd Apt B
Longview, TX 75601
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    C. Mack Powell



